apple unethical case study

Apple knew a supplier was using child labor but took 3 years to fully cut ties, despite the company's promises to hold itself to the 'highest standards,' report says

• Apple discovered that Suyin Electronics, one of its Chinese-based suppliers, relied on child labor on multiple occasions, but still took three years to fully cut ties, The Information reported on Thursday.
• Ten former members of Apple's supplier responsibility team told The Information the company has refused or has been slow to stop doing business with suppliers that repeatedly violate its labor policies when doing so would hurt its profits. 
• Apple has faced intense criticism recently amid reports that it relies on forced Uyghur labor and protests over poor working conditions and wage theft by workers that make its products.
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories .

Apple is back under the spotlight over labor conditions in its supply chain following an explosive report from The Information on Thursday that revealed new details about the company's reluctance to cut ties with suppliers who violate its ethics policies.

According to the report, Apple learned in 2013 that Suyin Electronics, a China-based company that (at the time) made parts for its MacBooks, was employing underage workers, and despite telling Suyin to address the issue or risk losing business, Apple discovered additional workers as young as 14 years old during an audit just three months later.

But rather than immediately cutting ties with Suyin for violating its supply chain ethics policies — which prohibit child labor and which Apple claims are the "highest standards"  — Apple continued to rely on the company for more than three years, according to The Information.

Related stories

Apple did not respond to a request for comment on this story. Suyin could not be reached for comment.

Ten former members of Apple's supplier responsibility team told The Information that Suyin wasn't an isolated incident, and that Apple had refused or was slow to stop doing business with suppliers that had repeatedly violated labor laws or failed to improve workplace safety when it would have cut into its profits.

Apple similarly refused to cut ties with Biel Crystal, one of its two suppliers of glass iPhone screens — despite a consistently poor workplace safety record, Apple employees' own concerns, and Biel executives explicitly admitting that improving safety wasn't worth it because doing so had actually led to less business from Apple — because cutting ties would have left Apple with less financial leverage over its remaining supplier, Lens Technology, according to The Information.

Biel did not respond to a request for comment.

In an illustration of just how intertwined Apple has become with unethical labor practices, The Washington Post reported earlier this week that Lens Technology itself relies on forced labor from thousands of Uyghurs that the Chinese government has displaced from their homes in Xinjiang.

While US lawmakers have proposed legislation aimed on curbing American companies' ability to use forced Uyghur labor, Apple sought to weaken the bill, The New York Times reported last month. (Apple took issue with that claim, telling The Times that it "did not lobby against" the bill but rather had "constructive discussions" with congressional staffers).

Apple has long been criticized over the labor practices of its suppliers , particularly in China but increasingly in other countries including India, where workers at an iPhone factory rioted after accusing management of withholding their pay.

In November, Apple was also forced to cut ties with its second-largest iPhone manufacturer , Pegatron, after discovering the company had violated labor laws by relying on "student workers" who were in practice doing work that had nothing to do with their degrees.

Watch: Apple's 2020 Worldwide Developers Conference keynote event in 14 minutes

• Main content

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Regulators Find Apple’s Secrecy Violates Workers’ Rights

After a yearlong investigation, a federal labor board determined that the tech giant’s rules interfere with employees’ right to organize.

By Tripp Mickle

Tripp Mickle, based in San Francisco, writes about Apple and the high-tech industry.

As employee unrest simmered at Apple in late 2021, Tim Cook, the company’s chief executive, sent an email reminding staff that the world’s most valuable company would do everything in its “power to identify those who leaked.”

The email spoke to the tech giant’s strictly enforced culture of secrecy that had kindled frustration among a group of former and current employees who collected accounts of verbal abuse, harassment and discrimination at Apple . Two of those former employees complained about the company’s policies to the National Labor Relations Board.

More than a year later, the labor board has found merit in the claim that Apple and its top executives have violated federal law with actions and policies that discourage employees from joining together to advance their interests.

A spokeswoman for the labor board said on Tuesday that it had determined that Apple’s work and confidentiality rules “interfere with, restrain or coerce employees” from collective action. If the parties are unable to settle the case, the board will issue a formal complaint against Apple and hold a hearing.

An Apple spokeswoman didn’t immediately have comment.

The labor board responded to five charges brought in late 2021 by two former Apple employees, Ashley Gjovik, an engineering program manager at Apple for six years, and Cher Scarlett, an engineer on the company’s security team. (After using a pseudonym to protect her anonymity, Ms. Scarlett said, she legally changed her name in 2021.) Both women were involved in the early days of what would become the activist group #AppleToo, which began by collecting accounts of abuse, harassment and retaliation at the company.

Activists in the #AppleToo initiative shared a belief that the company’s strict culture of secrecy discouraged workers from airing concerns about problems at work with one another, family or the media. As a result, they said, problematic managers went unchecked and the company’s business conduct was seldom questioned.

In their claims to the labor board, the former employees accused Apple of trying to prevent the group from collecting wage data from employees, including through harassment. They also said the company’s work rules prevented them from discussing wages, hours and conditions of employment.

Ms. Scarlett also complained to the labor board about Mr. Cook’s email to staff. Shortly after an all-hands meeting , Mr. Cook sent an email to staff warning that the company did “not tolerate disclosures of confidential information, whether it’s product IP or the details of a confidential meeting.” He said people who leaked did “not belong” at Apple.

During the labor board’s review, a regional office “found merit to a charge alleging statements and conduct by Apple — including high-level executives — also violated the National Labor Relations Act,” a spokeswoman for the board said.

Apple has continued to face challenges from workers since then, including over its corporate return-to-office policy and retail workers’ efforts to unionize.

Tripp Mickle covers technology from San Francisco, including Apple and other companies. Previously, he spent eight years at The Wall Street Journal reporting on Apple, Google, bourbon and beer. More about Tripp Mickle

Brought to you by:

Building a "Backdoor" to the iPhone: An Ethical Dilemma

By: Tulsi Jayakumar, Surya Tahora

In February 2016, Tim Cook, Apple's chief executive officer, challenged a U.S. Federal Court order for Apple to assist the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in a case involving suspected…

• Length: 10 page(s)
• Publication Date: Apr 28, 2016
• Discipline: Business Ethics
• Product #: W16245-PDF-ENG

What's included:

• Teaching Note
• Educator Copy

$4.95 per student

degree granting course

$8.95 per student

non-degree granting course

Get access to this material, plus much more with a free Educator Account:

• Access to world-famous HBS cases
• Up to 60% off materials for your students
• Resources for teaching online
• Tips and reviews from other Educators

Already registered? Sign in

• Student Registration
• Non-Academic Registration
• Included Materials

In February 2016, Tim Cook, Apple's chief executive officer, challenged a U.S. Federal Court order for Apple to assist the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in a case involving suspected international terrorism. The government wanted Apple to provide the FBI with access to encrypted data on an Apple product, the iPhone. Cook's refusal to acquiesce to the government's demands drew strong public debate, pitting the proponents of national security against those in favour of customers' digital privacy and security. The case invoked an ethical dilemma faced by management in issues involving right-versus-right decisions. Which right should Cook choose? What are the ethical dilemmas involved in making this decision? How should Cook resolve the dilemma?

Tulsi Jayakumar is affiliated with SP Jain Institute of Management & Research.

Learning Objectives

This case can be taught in a 90-minute session of a business ethics course in a postgraduate or executive MBA program. It may also be used in an information management course to teach a module on ethics in information management, focusing on the moral and ethical dimensions of information handling and use, including gatekeeping. The case will help students to: -Distinguish between various kinds of executive management decisions: right-versus-wrong compared to right-versus-right. -Recognize and understand the moral dilemmas facing management involving right-versus-right decisions or "the-dirty hands problem." -Understand the frameworks used in developing practical approaches to resolving these dilemmas.

Apr 28, 2016 (Revised: Aug 16, 2017)

Discipline:

Business Ethics

Ivey Publishing

W16245-PDF-ENG

We use cookies to understand how you use our site and to improve your experience, including personalizing content. Learn More . By continuing to use our site, you accept our use of cookies and revised Privacy Policy .

• Australia edition
• International edition
• Europe edition

Child labour uncovered in Apple's supply chain

Apple has discovered multiple cases of child labour in its supply chain, including one Chinese company that employed 74 children under the age of 16, in the latest controversy over the technology giant's manufacturing methods.

An internal audit found a flipside to the western consumer's insatiable thirst for innovative and competitively priced gadgets. It uncovered 106 cases of underage labour being used at Apple suppliers last year and 70 cases historically. The report follows a series of worker suicides over working conditions at Foxconn , the Taiwanese company that assembles must-have products such as the iPad and iPhone, and lethal explosions at other plants.

Apple's annual supplier report – which monitors nearly 400 suppliers – found that children were employed at 11 factories involved in making its products. A number of them had been recruited using forged identity papers.

The report uncovered a catalogue of other offences, ranging from mandatory pregnancy tests, to bonded workers whose wages are confiscated to pay off debts imposed by recruitment agencies. They also found cases of juveniles being used to lift heavy goods, workers having their wages docked as a punishment and one factory dumping waste oil in the toilets.

One Chinese supplier, a circuit board component maker called Guangdong Real Faith Pingzhou Electronics, was axed by Apple after 74 children under the age of 16 were recruited to work on its production lines. According to Apple, the children had been knowingly supplied by one of the region's largest labour agencies, Shenzhen Quanshun Human Resources. Its investigators found that the agency conspired with families to forge identification documents. Apple did not disclose the ages of the children involved, but its code of conduct states it will not employ workers under the age of 15, or under the legal working age in any jurisdiction – which is 16 in China .

Apple's chief executive, Tim Cook, who in a previous role was responsible for building Apple's supply chain, has been under pressure to push through changes after the suicides at Foxconn, whose manufacturing operations are largely based in China. Last September a brawl involving up to 2,000 workers forced Foxconn to close a plant in northern China.

Last year he described the use of underage labour as " abhorrent ", saying it was "extremely rare in our supply chain", and stepped up measures to weed out bad practice including hiring an independent auditor, the Fair Labor Association.

"Underage labour is a subject no company wants to be associated with, so as a result I don't believe it gets the attention it deserves, and as a result it doesn't get fixed like it should," said Jeff Williams, senior vice president of operations at Apple. He vowed to eradicate the practice, but said it could take some time.

At Pingzhou, the children were returned to their families and the employer was "required to pay expenses to facilitate their successful return". Although 95% of the facilities scrutinised by Apple complied with child labour laws, transgressors were told to return minors to a school chosen by their family, pay for their education, and give them an income equal to their factory wages.

Bonded labour was discovered at eight factories. In order to find work, some foreign labourers pay fees to a string of recruitment agencies and sub-agencies, amassing huge debts. Their wages are then automatically handed over to pay the debts, tying them to jobs until the balance has been paid off.

Apple ordered its suppliers to reimburse excessive recruitment fees – anything higher than one month's wages – and said $6.4m (£4m) was handed back to contract workers in 2012.

Investigators found 90 facilities that deducted wages to punish workers, prompting Apple to order the reimbursement of employees. Mandatory pregnancy testing was found at 34 places of work, while 25 tested for medical conditions such as hepatitis B. At four facilities, payroll records were falsified to hide information from auditors, and at one, a supplier was found intentionally dumping waste oil "into the restroom receptacle".

Apple said it took measures to protect whistleblowers, and that it made 8,000 calls last year to workers interviewed by auditors in order to find out if they had suffered intimidation.

• Child labour

More on this story

Apple and Samsung have won the smartphone wars. What's next?

Apple's disappointing results hits suppliers arm, imagination and laird.

Apple shares slide as iPhone misses Christmas sales forecast

Steve Jobs threatened to sue Palm over no-hire agreement, documents show

Has Apple really started to rot?

Come on Apple, think different

Most viewed.

Downloadable Content

Batterygate: An Ethical Analysis of Apple's Infamous Multimillion Dollar Mistake

• Undergraduate Project
• Kyle Takara California State University Long Beach
• Dr. Sandra Pérez California State University Long Beach
• Accountancy
• California State University, Long Beach
• Undergraduate
• Business Administration
• Business > Accounting
• http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12680/3r075211c

Relationships

• University Honors Program

Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Apple vs. FBI Case Study

• Markkula Center for Applied Ethics
• Focus Areas
• Business Ethics
• Business Ethics Resources

Business & government struggle over encryption’s proper place.

Apple iPhone

Kiichiro Sato/AP Photo

In the wake of the December 2015 terrorist attack in San Bernardino, attention turned to the perpetrator’s iPhone.  A federal judge asked Apple, maker of the iPhone, to provide “reasonable technical assistance” to the FBI in accessing the information on the phone with that hope of discovering additional threats to national security.

Apple provided the FBI with data it had in their possession and sent Apple engineers to advise the FBI, but refused to comply with the court order to bypass the phone’s security measures: specifically the 4-digit login code and a feature that erases all data after ten incorrect attempts.  The FBI argued that the bypass could only be used for this phone, this one time.  The agency also cited national security concerns, given the phone may lead to better understanding the attack and preventing further incidents.

Apple CEO Tim Cook issued a public letter reiterating Apple’s refusal to cooperate.  Cook advocated for the benefits of encryption in society to keep personal information safe.  He stated that creating the backdoor entry into the iPhone would be akin to creating a master key capable of accessing the tens of millions of iPhones in the U.S. alone.  Cook also had concerns that the FBI was outstepping its bounds - by using the court system to expand its authority - and believed the case should be settled after public debate and legislative action through Congress instead.

Public opinion polls on the issue were split.  A number of major tech firms filed amicus briefs in support of Apple.  The White House and Bill Gates stood behind the FBI.  In anticlimactic fashion, the FBI withdrew its request a day before the hearing, claiming it no longer needed Apple’s help to assess the phone.  It is speculated that an Israeli tech firm, Cellebrite, helped the FBI gain assess.

• Was Apple wrong for not complying with the FBI’s request? If so, why?  If not, why not?
• What ethical issues are involved in this case? Please consult our Framework for Ethical Decision Making for an overview of modes of moral reasoning.
• Who are the stakeholders in this situation?
• Apple’s values are listed on the bottom of its home page at apple.com . Is the company’s decision consistent with its values?  Is that important?

• You are in:

Apple has long been the target of numerous campaigns due to workers' rights issues at its supplier factories.

But the multi-billion pound tech giant has also been found wanting in other areas.

Is Apple ethical?

Our research highlights several ethical issues with Apple, including climate change, environmental reporting, habitats & resources, pollution and toxics, arms & military supply, human rights, workers' rights, supply chain management, irresponsible marketing, anti-social finance, and political activities. 

Below we outline of some of these issues. To see the full detailed stories, and Apple's overall ethical rating, please sign in or subscribe .

In December 2019 a Guardian article named Apple as defendants in a lawsuit filed in Washington DC by human rights firm International Rights Advocates on behalf of 14 parents and children from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Other defendants in this lawsuit included Google, Dell, Microsoft and Tesla.

Several families were seeking damages and compensation for the death or serious injury of children who they claim were working in cobalt mines in Apple's supply chain.

Also in 2019 the Ranking Digital Rights (RDR) Corporate Accountability Index gave Apple a score of just 46% . The report rated companies on "commitments and policies, based on international human rights standards." Apple was said to have scored poorly, "due to its lack of governance and oversight over human rights risks, and also lack of clear disclosure of policies affecting users’ freedom of expression."

Environment

Apple received Ethical Consumer's worst rating for environmental reporting in 2019. Whilst the information in their 2019 Environmental Responsibility report covered Apple's main environmental impacts, including conflict minerals, it included only one dated and quantified future environmental target:

“By 2020, Apple and our suppliers will generate or procure at least 4 gigawatts of clean energy in our supply chain.”

Because Apple lacked a second future-dated, quantified target we deducted a mark in the Environmental Reporting category.

Apple's 2019 Environmental Responsibility Report included sections on the use of potentially hazardous chemicals such as PVC, BFR and phthalates.

It claimed that all of its newer products were BFR and PVC free, and included a table that listed the dates at which these substances has been phased out of specific parts of products and packaging. Apple commented that "Apple products are free of PVC and phthalates with the exception of power cords in India, Thailand, and South Korea, where we continue to seek government approval for our PVC and phthalates replacement." As the company had already achieved the elimination of PVC, BFR and phthalates from its products except in some exceptional cases, it received Ethical Consumer’s best rating for its pollution and toxics policy.

There was third party verification by Bureau Veritas (BV) and of product-related carbon footprint by Fraunhofer. 

In 2018, Apple was fined £10 million by the Italian authorities for ‘planned obsolescence’ built into their smartphones. Furthermore in the US, Apple lobbied a right to repair bill which helped to cause its being pulled. As a result, Apple can be seen as part of the problem of toxic e-waste .

In July 2019 Ethical Consumer awarded Apple a worst mark for strategies that were likely to be used to avoid tax. This was because the family tree for Apple Inc on  www.hoovers.com  and showed that the company had subsidiaries in Ireland, the Netherlands, and Singapore. 

These were jurisdictions which were considered by Ethical Consumer to be tax havens and were therefore considered to be at high risk of being used for tax avoidance purposes.

Upon further investigation, Ethical Consumer found a statement given by Apple that provided a narrative explanation for why the company had subsidiaries in Ireland. This wasn't strong enough to affect our decision to give Apple a worst rating for tax avoidance, especially given that we found no country-by-country financial information or reporting (CBCR), nor a clear public tax statement confirming that it was this company’s policy not to engage in tax avoidance activity or to use tax havens for tax avoidance purposes. Apple is one of the silicon six, which has been revealed to have a tax gap of $100 billion so far this decade .

As a result, Apple Inc lost a whole mark in our tax avoidance category.

Company information

Company address:.

• Annual revenue: £318,000,000,000
• Website: https://investor.apple.com

Contact Apple

Tweet Apple to let them know what you think of their ethics.

• Tweet a positive message
• Tweet a negative message
• Send a positive email
• Send a negative email

Associated brands

Related product guides.

• Desktop computers
• Ethical Laptops
• Ethical Mobile Phones
• Tablets and e-readers
• Ethical Bookshops
• Email Providers
• Video Conferencing

Ownership structure

Ethical stories, pre 2024 ratings, climate change.

• Best Ethical Consumer Rating for Carbon Management and Reporting

Environmental Reporting

• Middle Ethical Consumer rating for Environmental Reporting

Habitats & Resources

• Best Ethical Consumer rating for conflict minerals policy and practice
• Criticised for using gold possibly mined illegally from Brazilian indigenous lands

Pollution & Toxics

• Best Ethical Consumer rating for toxic chemicals policy – electronics
• Halted iPhone 12 sales over radiation exposure levels

Human Rights

• Middle Ethical Consumer rating for operations in oppressive regimes
• Involvement in facial recognition technology
• Named in ASPI report: Uyghurs for sale, beyond Xinjiang
• Named in US lawsuit over Congolese child cobalt mining deaths
• Ranking Digital Rights

Supply Chain Management

• Middle Ethical Consumer rating for Supply Chain Management

Workers' Rights

• Information only: KnowTheChain rating
• Criticised for union-busting at New York store
• Police beat iPhone workers at Foxconn plant
• Allegations of insecure working contracts breaching Chinese labour laws
• Apple Allows Supplier Factory Foxconn to Violate Labor Laws

Anti-Social Finance

• Excessive remuneration for directors or other staff

Political Activities

• Member of five free trade lobby groups
• Political donations and lobbying for contracts or policy changes

Tax Conduct

• Worst Ethical Consumer rating for likely use of tax avoidance strategies
• Decade of not paying enough tax

Rebuilding Trust: Apple Crisis Management Case Study

Crisis management is an essential skill for any business, as even the most successful companies can find themselves in challenging situations that threaten their reputation and bottom line. 

One such case that garnered significant attention and scrutiny is the Apple crisis. 

Apple, the tech giant known for its innovation and loyal customer base, faced a crisis that put its brand and reputation at risk. 

In this blog post, we will delve into the Apple crisis management case study, exploring the challenges faced by the company, the strategies implemented to navigate the crisis, and the lessons learned from their experience. 

By examining Apple’s crisis management approach, we can gain valuable insights into the importance of proactive crisis management and its impact on businesses in today’s hyper-connected world.

Let’s dive in and learn more 

Overview of Apple’s history and brand image

Apple, founded in 1976 by Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, and Ronald Wayne, has emerged as one of the most influential and valuable companies in the world. The company’s journey began with the creation of the Apple I, a personal computer that laid the foundation for their future success.

Over the years, Apple revolutionized various industries, introducing groundbreaking products such as the Macintosh, iPod, iPhone, iPad, and Apple Watch.

One of the key factors contributing to Apple’s success is its unwavering commitment to innovation. The company’s ability to anticipate and meet consumer needs with cutting-edge technology has consistently set it apart from its competitors. Apple’s products are renowned for their sleek designs, user-friendly interfaces, and seamless integration across its ecosystem.

Beyond its products, Apple has cultivated a distinctive brand image that resonates with consumers worldwide. The company’s brand is synonymous with excellence, creativity, and a forward-thinking mindset. Apple’s marketing campaigns, such as the famous “Think Different” slogan, have fostered a sense of aspiration and uniqueness among its customers.

Furthermore, Apple has successfully built a loyal and passionate community around its products. The Apple ecosystem encourages users to remain within the brand’s ecosystem, promoting customer retention and brand loyalty. This devotion is evident in the enthusiastic anticipation and high demand for new Apple product launches.

Explanation of the crisis situation faced by Apple

Apple, a company known for its strong brand image and customer loyalty, faced a significant crisis that posed a considerable challenge to its reputation. The crisis situation arose when reports and allegations surfaced regarding unethical labor practices in Apple’s supply chain.

These reports highlighted issues such as poor working conditions, excessive overtime, child labor, and inadequate safety measures in some of the factories producing Apple products.

The crisis was exacerbated by extensive media coverage and the viral spread of information through social media platforms. News outlets, consumer advocacy groups, and concerned individuals amplified the allegations, putting pressure on Apple to address the situation swiftly and transparently.

The crisis not only raised ethical concerns but also posed a threat to Apple’s brand image. The company’s reputation for innovation, quality, and customer satisfaction was at risk of being tarnished by association with these labor controversies.

Apple was faced with the challenge of not only addressing the immediate issues within its supply chain but also effectively managing the perception of its commitment to social responsibility and ethical business practices.

Factors that led to the crisis

The crisis faced by Apple regarding unethical labor practices in its supply chain was influenced by several factors that contributed to the emergence and escalation of the issue.

• Globalized Supply Chain: Apple’s success as a global technology leader relies on a vast and complex supply chain spread across various countries. The company sources components and assembles its products through a network of suppliers and subcontractors worldwide. The extensive reach of this supply chain increases the difficulty of monitoring and ensuring ethical practices at every stage.
• Outsourcing and Cost Pressures: To remain competitive, companies like Apple often outsource production to regions with lower labor costs. This outsourcing, while driving efficiency and cost savings, can sometimes lead to compromised labor standards. Suppliers under cost pressures may resort to exploitative practices such as excessive working hours, low wages, and poor working conditions to meet demand and maintain profitability.
• Lack of Supply Chain Transparency: Managing a complex supply chain poses challenges in terms of visibility and transparency. Apple, like many other companies, faced difficulties in monitoring and enforcing labor standards across its entire supply chain. The lack of transparency made it challenging to identify and address ethical issues promptly, allowing problems to persist and potentially escalate.
• Limited Supplier Oversight: Despite Apple’s efforts to implement supplier codes of conduct and auditing processes, the sheer number of suppliers and subcontractors involved made it challenging to maintain stringent oversight. This resulted in instances where unethical labor practices went undetected or were inadequately addressed.
• Social Media and Activism: The rise of social media platforms and increased activism empowered consumers, workers, and advocacy groups to expose and publicize the labor issues within Apple’s supply chain. The widespread dissemination of information and the ability for individuals to amplify their concerns quickly led to significant reputational risks for the company.

Impact of the crisis on Apple’s brand and reputation

The following are key impacts of the crisis on Apple’s brand and reputation:

• Brand Perception : The crisis undermined Apple’s carefully cultivated brand image. The allegations of unethical labor practices tarnished the perception of Apple as a company that prioritizes the well-being of its workers and upholds high ethical standards. The negative media coverage and public scrutiny eroded trust and raised doubts about the authenticity of Apple’s commitment to responsible business practices.
• Consumer Trust: Apple’s loyal customer base, which had been drawn to the company for its innovative products and perceived values, was confronted with allegations of worker exploitation. This eroded the trust and loyalty that customers had placed in Apple. Concerned consumers started questioning the ethics behind their purchasing decisions and may have become hesitant to support the brand.
• Investor Confidence: The crisis had implications for investor confidence in Apple. The negative publicity and potential ethical implications affected the perception of Apple’s risk management practices and corporate governance. Investors may have raised concerns about the company’s ability to effectively manage supply chain risks and protect its brand value, leading to potential impacts on the company’s stock price and shareholder sentiment.
• Reputational Damage: The crisis resulted in significant reputational damage for Apple. The labor controversies received widespread media attention, leading to negative headlines and public discourse about the company’s ethical standards. This damage extended beyond Apple’s core customer base, reaching a broader audience and potentially influencing perceptions of the brand among potential customers and stakeholders.
• Competitive Disadvantage: The crisis also created a potential competitive disadvantage for Apple. Competitors in the technology industry could capitalize on the negative publicity and position themselves as more socially responsible alternatives. Apple’s reputation for innovation and quality alone might not be sufficient to counterbalance the ethical concerns raised by the crisis.

Apple’s Crisis Management Strategy 

Following are key aspects of Apple crisis management strategy:

Immediate response to the crisis

When faced with the crisis of unethical labor practices in its supply chain, Apple swiftly initiated an immediate response to address the situation. The company recognized the gravity of the allegations and understood the importance of proactive crisis management.

The following are key aspects of Apple’s immediate response strategy:

• Acknowledgment and Investigation: Apple promptly acknowledged the allegations and expressed its commitment to investigating the issues thoroughly. The company recognized the need for transparency and took responsibility for addressing the labor concerns within its supply chain.
• Supplier Audits: Apple conducted comprehensive audits of its suppliers to assess the working conditions, labor practices, and adherence to ethical standards. These audits aimed to identify non-compliant suppliers and gather detailed information to formulate appropriate corrective actions.
• Collaboration with Suppliers: Apple worked closely with its suppliers to address the identified issues and enforce compliance with ethical labor standards. The company engaged in open dialogue, sharing its expectations and implementing measures to improve working conditions and protect workers’ rights.
• Supplier Code of Conduct: Apple reinforced its supplier code of conduct, which outlines the expectations and requirements for ethical labor practices. The company communicated the code clearly to all suppliers and emphasized the importance of compliance. Non-compliant suppliers were urged to make necessary improvements or face consequences.

Initial actions taken by Apple to address the crisis

During the initial stages of the crisis, Apple took several immediate actions to address the labor concerns and mitigate the negative impact. These actions demonstrated the company’s commitment to resolving the issues and improving working conditions within its supply chain.

The following are some of the key initial actions taken by Apple:

• Supplier Engagement and Remediation: Apple actively engaged with its suppliers to address the identified labor issues. The company worked collaboratively with suppliers to develop and implement remediation plans that focused on improving working conditions, ensuring fair wages, and eliminating unethical labor practices. This approach emphasized corrective actions rather than simply severing ties with non-compliant suppliers.
• Worker Empowerment Programs: Apple recognized the importance of empowering workers and ensuring their well-being. The company implemented programs to educate workers about their rights, provide channels for reporting grievances, and establish mechanisms for feedback and improvement. These initiatives aimed to empower workers and create an environment where their voices were heard.
• Enhanced Supply Chain Transparency: Apple took steps to improve supply chain transparency, making information about its suppliers more readily available. The company published annual reports that detailed its supplier responsibility initiatives, audits, and progress made in addressing labor concerns. This transparency aimed to build trust among stakeholders and hold Apple accountable for its actions.
• Collaboration with Industry Peers: Apple actively collaborated with other industry leaders and stakeholders to address the systemic challenges within the technology supply chain. By partnering with organizations and sharing best practices, Apple sought to drive industry-wide improvements in labor practices and create a more sustainable and ethical supply chain.

Crisis containment and damage control

In addition to the immediate response, Apple implemented crisis containment and damage control measures to limit the negative repercussions of the labor crisis. The company recognized the importance of effectively managing the situation to protect its brand and reputation.

The following are key actions taken by Apple for crisis containment and damage control:

• Clear Communication: Apple developed a comprehensive communication strategy to address the crisis. The company proactively communicated with stakeholders, including customers, employees, investors, and the public, to provide updates on the progress made in resolving the labor issues. Transparent and timely communication aimed to rebuild trust and maintain transparency throughout the crisis.
• Public Statements and Apologies: Apple’s top executives issued public statements acknowledging the gravity of the situation and expressing apologies for any harm caused. The company took responsibility for the issues within its supply chain and emphasized its commitment to remediation and preventing similar incidents in the future. Public apologies were crucial in demonstrating accountability and a willingness to learn from the crisis.
• Continuous Improvement and Reporting: Apple emphasized continuous improvement by regularly reporting on its progress in addressing the labor crisis. The company shared annual reports, sustainability updates, and supplier responsibility progress reports to showcase the strides made in improving working conditions and upholding ethical practices. Transparent reporting aimed to rebuild trust and demonstrate Apple’s ongoing commitment to accountability.

05 lessons learned from Apple Crisis Management Case Study

These lessons learned from Apple crisis management case study can serve as valuable takeaways for other organizations facing similar challenges. 

Let’s discuss each of these:

Proactive auditing and monitoring

Apple learned the importance of proactive auditing and monitoring of its supply chain to identify and address potential issues. Regular audits and inspections help ensure compliance with ethical standards and allow for early intervention and remediation.

Transparent communication

The crisis highlighted the significance of transparent communication with stakeholders. Apple realized that timely and honest communication about the crisis, its causes, and the steps taken to address it was essential for rebuilding trust and maintaining transparency.

Supplier collaboration and support

Apple recognized the need for collaboration and support with its suppliers. The company learned that working closely with suppliers, providing resources, guidance, and training, helps improve ethical practices and strengthens the overall supply chain.

Long-term commitment

Apple understood the importance of a long-term commitment to addressing the crisis and preventing future incidents. The company recognized that sustainable change requires ongoing efforts, continuous improvement, and a steadfast commitment to ethical practices and responsible business conduct.

External validation and partnerships

The crisis highlighted the value of external validation and partnerships. Apple sought certifications and accreditations from recognized third-party organizations to provide independent verification of its efforts. Collaborating with industry peers, NGOs, and advocacy groups allowed Apple to gain insights, share best practices, and drive collective change.

Final Words 

Apple crisis management case study provides valuable insights into how a company can navigate and recover from a crisis while minimizing the negative impact on its brand and reputation. The labor crisis presented Apple with significant challenges, but the company responded with a comprehensive and strategic approach.

Ultimately, Apple crisis management case study highlights the significance of a holistic approach that goes beyond immediate crisis response. By taking responsibility, implementing meaningful actions, and fostering a culture of responsible business conduct, a company can rebuild trust, enhance its reputation, and position itself as a leader in ethical practices and sustainability

About The Author

Tahir Abbas

Related posts.

Risks of Organizational Restructuring

Stakeholders Engagement KPIs – Explained with Examples

Making a Career Change at 40 – a Complete Journey

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Apple Inc. Ethical Dilemma: A Case Study Example

Ethical dilemmas present individuals with an unique opportunity to exercise rationality, impartiality, objectivity and ethics. Business managers and employees are constantly faced with ethical dilemmas. Choosing the right course of action is critical not only to the success of the business but also in showcasing one’s moral and ethical stance. A sample case study of an ethical dilemma is presented herein, and the best course of action in light of various ethical principles and theories.

Related Papers

Yotam Lurie , Robert Albin , יותם לוריא

ABSTRACT. There have been many attempts during the history of applied ethics that have tried to develop a theory of moral reasoning. The goal of this paper is to explicate one aspect of the debate between various attempts of offering a specific method for resolving moral dilemmas. We contrast two kinds of deliberative methods: deliberative methods whose goal is decision-making and deliberative methods that are aimed at gaining edifying perspectives. The decision-making methods assessed include the traditional moral theories like utilitarianism and Kantianism, as well as second order principles, such as principlism and specified principlism. In light of this assessment, we suggest taking a closer look at two perceptive models, casuistry and particularism. These models are used for dealing with moral dilemmas that provide for edifying perspectives rather than decision-making. These perceptive models, though less scientific and not as good at prescribing an action, are more human in the sense that they enrich our moral sensibilities and enhance our understanding of the meaning of the situation.

ResearchGate

Steven C Miller

This essay explores the ethical dimensions of Apple's corporate conduct through the lenses of Christian morality, scriptural guidance, and industry competition. Drawing insights from academic perspectives by Ferrell et al. (2022), Ruddell (2014), and Syed Abdul Bukhari's analysis (2021), the study examines how Apple aligns its organizational philosophy with biblical principles, handles ethical challenges guided by Christian morality, and navigates industry competition within a Christian worldview. The analysis reveals that Apple's commitment to transparency, justice, and stakeholder ethics resonates with Christian values, as evidenced by its supply chain transparency, user privacy initiatives, and collaboration with industry peers. The essay underscores the importance of aligning corporate conduct with Christian principles and scriptural guidance to foster ethical decision-making in the dynamic business environment.

Dr. Jide Williams

Viktor Blohmé

European Journal of Economics and Business Studies

Sibel Oktar Thomas

The moral nature of corporations has been discussed for a long time. But, since 2001, with enormous economic effects of the misconduct of some corporations this discussion gained another dimension, it moved into the public sphere, the subject became more sensitive. The anger and mistrust of the public toward business triggered legislators and corporations to take urgent action. For example, just after the collapse of Enron (2001) the American Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002) that covers the responsibilities of boards of directors and requires compliance training at all levels. It also revived the old controversial arguments about the nature of business – whether the only purpose of business is to make profits, the relationship of business and ethics – whether business ethics is an oxymoron, and human nature – whether it is ‘bad apples’ or ‘bad barrels’. Yet, with new sets of regulations, in 2017, we are still witnessing the misconduct of corporations on a global scale. This article investigates the effectiveness of corporate efforts such as revisiting mission statements, polishing the codes of ethics and conducting training, by evaluating the nature of business, human nature and the understanding of ethics in the workplace. By looking through the lens of utilitarianism of ethical issues in business, I will argue that codes of ethics and ethics training are necessary but not sufficient. Within the scope of this paper I wish to pave the way to a holistic approach which is necessary and sufficient to create ethical businesses.

The European Journal of Social & Behavioural Sciences

roslind thambusamy

Ethics has long been a catchphrase that has come to mean different things to different people. Business ethics, in particular, has been known to mutate according to the context and requirements of the business entity in question. This paper seeks to elucidate the concept and application of ethics within the context of a particular industry and uses a case study approach to investigate the workings of a company with a focus on the operations of a local company in terms of its alignment to ethical norms. The methodology used was content analysis of documents pertaining to the company’s operations. The findings revealed that the company did use an ethical approach in its business operations thereby proving that a business enterprise can succeed without having to resort to unethical practices to secure profits.

The third edition of Business Ethics: Decision Making for Personal Integrity and Social Responsibility, by Hartman, DesJardins, and MacDonald, offers a comprehensive, accessible, and practical introduction to the ethical issues arising in business. The text focuses on real-world ethical decision making at both the personal and policy levels and provides students with a decision-making process that can be used in any situation. In addition, practical applications throughout the text show how theories relate to the real world. The third edition features thoroughly updated statistics and coverage of timely issues and dilemmas throughout the text.

International Journal of Procurement Management

Mohammed T Nuseir

Journal of Business Ethics

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

JUSTIN GABRIEL

This paper reviewed the literature on ethics, ethical theories, ethical principles; as well as the implications of unethical practices in organizations. The study revealed that unethical business practices have devastating consequences on organizations; since they result in poor corporate image, financial losses; market failures and sometimes complete corporate collapse. It was further observed that corruption, bad leadership, poor corporate governance, conflict of interest, lack of accountability, inadequate CSR, abusive and intimating behaviors among others are common in most organizations. The paper concludes that it is beneficial and in the enlightened self -interest of organizations to adopt good ethical practices. The paper also recommends that managers’ should ensure that ethical standards are crafted in their business philosophy and strategic intents in order to build and maintain a good corporate image.

RELATED PAPERS

Gastroenterology

Kisou Kubota

www.orgcmf.com

declan kavanagh

Gianluigi Bellin

Saskia aulia nazlina

Saskia aulia Nazlina

Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning

Andrew Flynn

Felix Helfer

Food Science and Biotechnology

Bhesh Raj Sharma

Physical Activity Review

Iuliia Pavlova

International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences

isabella sima

Journal of the American Heart Association

European Journal of Experimental Biology

Ali javanmard

Diabetologia

Zuzana Lohse

Signal and Information Processing Association Annual Summit and Conference (APSIPA), 2014 Asia-Pacific

Chenglin Xu

Fronteiras: Journal of Social, Technological and Environmental Science

Marcelo Limont

John Mayberry

Anais do III Inovagri International Meeting - 2015

Vitor Marques Vidal

Journal of Health Sciences and Medical Development

kurnia dewiani

ENERGI & KELISTRIKAN

luthfiansyah romadhoni

Physical Review E

Hubertus Thomas

Biological Conservation

Adrian Treves

Mahdi Al-kaisi

Neurosurgical Focus

Mehdi Zeinalizadeh

Marine Drugs

Valentina González

Retrieved June

Manfredi La Manna

Mohammed Abu-Dieyeh

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Find Study Materials for

• Business Studies
• Combined Science
• Computer Science
• Engineering
• English Literature
• Environmental Science
• Human Geography
• Macroeconomics
• Microeconomics
• Social Studies
• Browse all subjects
• Read our Magazine

Create Study Materials

Technology is nothing.  What's important is that you have a faith in people, that they're basically good and smart, and if you give them tools, they'll do wonderful things with them.

Explore our app and discover over 50 million learning materials for free.

• Apple Ethical Issues
• Explanations
• StudySmarter AI
• Textbook Solutions
• Amazon Global Business Strategy
• Apple Change Management
• Apple Global Strategy
• Apple Marketing Strategy
• Ben and Jerrys CSR
• Bill And Melinda Gates Foundation
• Bill Gates Leadership Style
• Coca-Cola Business Strategy
• Disney Pixar Merger Case Study
• Enron Scandal
• Franchise Model McDonalds
• Google Organisational Culture
• Ikea Foundation
• Ikea Transnational Strategy
• Jeff Bezos Leadership Style
• Kraft Cadbury Takeover
• Mary Barra Leadership Style
• McDonalds Organisational Structure
• Netflix Innovation Strategy
• Nike Marketing Strategy
• Nike Sweatshop Scandal
• Nivea Market Segmentation
• Nokia Change Management
• Organisation Design Case Study
• Oyo Franchise Model
• Porters Five Forces Apple
• Porters Five Forces Starbucks
• Porters Five Forces Walmart
• Pricing Strategy of Nestle Company
• Ryanair Strategic Position
• SWOT analysis of Cadbury
• Starbucks Ethical Issues
• Starbucks International Strategy
• Starbucks Marketing Strategy
• Susan Wojcicki Leadership Style
• Swot Analysis of Apple
• Tesco Organisational Structure
• Tesco SWOT Analysis
• Unilever Outsourcing
• Virgin Media O2 Merger
• Walt Disney CSR Programs
• Warren Buffett Leadership Style
• Zara Franchise Model
• Business Development
• Business Operations
• Change Management
• Corporate Finance
• Financial Performance
• Human Resources
• Influences On Business
• Intermediate Accounting
• Introduction to Business
• Managerial Economics
• Nature of Business
• Operational Management
• Organizational Behavior
• Organizational Communication
• Strategic Analysis
• Strategic Direction

Lerne mit deinen Freunden und bleibe auf dem richtigen Kurs mit deinen persönlichen Lernstatistiken

Nie wieder prokastinieren mit unseren Lernerinnerungen.

Technology is nothing. What's important is that you have a faith in people, that they're basically good and smart, and if you give them tools, they'll do wonderful things with them.

- Steve Jobs

All businesses have some sets of ethical practices they follow. However, many companies, especially multinational corporations, fail to do so and are accused of ethical issues. In this case study, we will examine the ethical practices and issues of Apple.

Introduction to Apple

Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company that designs and manufactures personal computers, smartphones, tablet computers, computer peripherals, and computer software. It was founded by Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak and Ronald Wayne in 1975 in Cupertino, California, United States.

The company's first product was Apple I, a personal computer hand-built by Steve Wozniak (see Figure 1 below). For its first 30 years, the company was called Apple Computer Inc. until in 2007 it dropped 'computer' to reflect its ongoing expansion into the consumer electronics market. Currently, Apple is the largest information technology company by revenue and the world's most valuable company. As of 2021, employing 154 thousand people, the company had over 500 stores worldwide, including 271 stores in the United States.

Ethical practices

We do the right thing, even when it's not easy.

- Tim Cook, Apple's Chief Executive Officer

Business conduct

Business conduct is a set of principles designed to guide workers to conduct themselves with honesty and integrity in all actions representing a company.

There are four main principles that guide Apple's business practices: honesty, respect, confidentiality and compliance.

The company requires its employees, suppliers, contractors, consultants and other business partners to follow these principles when providing goods and services to Apple or acting on its behalf. In doing so, they should demonstrate high ethical standards, and treat customers, partners, suppliers, employees, and others with respect and courtesy. Additionally, they should protect the company's and its stakeholders' confidential information and make sure that business decisions comply with applicable laws and regulations. The company also has a set of policies regarding workplace behaviors, protecting Apple, individual accountability and business integrity .

Corporate social responsibility

Corporate social responsibility is a set of practices businesses undertake in order to contribute to society in a positive way.

Companies may set environmental goals, follow ethical practices and internal governance, or set social objectives - these are all forms of CSR that are integrated into a businesses' operations and interactions with its stakeholders.

To learn more about CSR see our explanation about Corporate Social Responsibility .

There are also some practices Apple undertakes to commit to society in a positive way. Apple seems to be highly value people. The company provides learning opportunities and ensures that health and safety standards are kept. What is more, it takes care of the environment by reducing its carbon footprint. As it says on the company's website:

Apple is committed to the highest standards of social responsibility across our worldwide supply chain. We insist that all of our suppliers provide safe working conditions, treat workers with dignity and respect, and use environmentally responsible manufacturing processes. Our actions - from thorough site audits to industry-leading training programs - demonstrate this commitment. " (apple.com)

Ethical issues

Despite its commitments, there seem to be several ethical issues with Apple (see Figure 2 below). These include poor working conditions such as health and safety risks, child labour, poor environmental reporting, contribution to e-waste and tax avoidance.

After an investigation at one of Apple's suppliers, the Fair Labor Association found

excessive overtime and problems with overtime compensation; several health and safety risks; and crucial communication gaps that have led to a widespread sense of unsafe working conditions among workers "

In one of The Guardian's articles from 2019, Apple was named a defendant in a lawsuit filed in Washington DC by human rights firm International Rights Advocates on behalf of 14 parents and children from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). These parents were seeking damages and compensation for the death or serious injury of their children who, as they claimed, were working in cobalt mines in Apple's supply chain.

In the same year, the Ranking Digital Rights (RDR) Corporate Accountability Index, which rates companies on " commitments and policies, based on international human rights standards", gave Apple a score of 46%. A reason for the low score was Apple's

Lack of governance and oversight over human rights risks, and also lack of clear disclosure of policies affecting users' freedom of expression ”.

Environment

According to Ethical Consumer's rating for environmental reporting, in 2019, Apple received the worst rating . Despite some environmental impacts, Apple's 2019 Environmental Responsibility report included only one dated and quantified future environmental target which was generating or procuring at least 4 gigawatts of clean energy in its supply chain by 2020.

Additionally, the report included sections on the use of potentially hazardous chemicals. The company commented that

Apple products are free of PVC and phthalates with the exception of power cords in India, Thailand, and South Korea, where Ethical Consumer continues to seek government approval for our PVC and phthalates replacement. "

After eliminating the hazardous chemicals, Apple received Ethical Consumer's best rating for its pollution and toxics policy. However, although the company solved this issue, as of 2018 Apple in the United States abandoned the Right to Repair Bill which made the company further contribute to the problem of toxic e-waste.

In 2019 Apple was awarded the worst mark for strategies that were likely to be used to avoid tax Ethical Consumer. The family tree for Apple Inc on www.hoovers.com showed that the company had subsidiaries in countries such as Ireland, the Netherlands, and Singapore which are considered to be tax havens.

A tax- haven is considered to be a country or jurisdiction that allows large companies to benefit from the low taxation rates available in the country deemed to be a tax haven. This way, the company does not have to pay taxes in the country where it operates.

Despite Apple defending the accusation, the company's explanations were not strong enough and did not convince Ethical Consumers to change the mark. Additionally, there was no country-by-country financial information or reporting and no clear public tax statement confirming that it was the company's policy not to engage in tax avoidance activity or to use tax havens for tax avoidance purposes. As it turned out, by 2019 Apple had a tax gap of $100 billion for the decade and consequently lost a whole mark in the Ethical Consumer tax avoidance category.

Implications of the ethical issues

Ethical issues can have a significant impact on a company's brand image, consumers and employees. The several ethical issues of Apple Inc. mentioned above reflect on how the corporation follows ethical principles set in its business conduct and keeps up with its standards of social responsibility. Despite declaring its honesty, respect, confidentiality, compliance and commitment to society, Apple does not entirely accomplish its promises.

Nevertheless, the company does not seem to suffer the consequences. Its strong brand stands for high prices and stylish technological products. According to the most recent data from 2021, Apple was one of the top 10 consumer electronics companies and best brands in the world. What is more, the company's revenue is constantly growing. From 108.2 billion dollars in 2011, it grew up to 365.82 billion dollars in 2021. Therefore, it can be concluded that the ethical issues did not damage Apple's brand image and did not put off its consumers.

Apple Ethical Issues - Key takeaways

• Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company that designs and manufactures personal computers, smartphones, tablet computers, computer peripherals, and computer software.
• Currently, Apple is the largest information technology company by revenue and the world's most valuable company.
• Apple's business conduct includes four main principles that guide its business practices: honesty, respect, confidentiality and compliance.
• Apple's actions regarding corporate social responsibility include creating learning opportunities, ensuring health and safety, and protecting the environment.
• Unfortunately, there seem to be several ethical issues with Apple such as poor working conditions such as health and safety risks, child labour, poor environmental reporting, contributing to e-waste and tax avoidance.

https://blog.hubspot.com/sales/steve-jobs-quotes

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Apple_Inc.

https: // www. britica.com/topic/Apple-Inc/Desktop-publishing-revolution

https://www.statista.com/chart/24857/total-number-of-apple-stores-worldwide/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/273439/number-of-employees-of-apple-since-2005/

https://www.apple.com/compliance/

https://www.apple.com/supplier-responsibility/

https://www.eoi.es/blogs/marieglueck/2012/05/07/how-serious-is-apple-about-csr/

https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/company-profile/apple-inc

https://www.grin.com/document/160761

https://www.statista.com/statistics/265125/total-net-sales-of-apple-since-2004/

• Fig. 1: Original Apple I Computer (https://www.flickr.com/photos/eevblog/14767800987) by Dave Jones (https://www.flickr.com/photos/eevblog/) licensed by CC BY 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en)

Frequently Asked Questions about Apple Ethical Issues

--> what are some ethical issues with apple.

The main ethical issues with Apple are poor working conditions, child labour, and poor environmental reporting. 

--> How does Apple handle ethical issues?

Apple handles ethical issues by introducing a business conduct guide for all employees and partners to follow. It also set many goals to counter the impact of the production processes on the environment and improve working conditions. 

--> Are Apple Products ethical?

Apple requires all its supplies to treat workers fairly and use environmental-friendly methods in production. However, this is far from preventing all unethical practices such as child labour, e-waste, or unsafe working environments that still exist in certain parts of the world. 

--> What are examples of ethical issues?

Tax avoidance, e-waste, and oversight over human rights are examples of ethical issues by companies operating worldwide. 

--> Are Apple iPhones ethically made?

Apple iPhones are produced with the consideration of social responsibility   across the worldwide supply chain. However, unethical practices still exist in certain parts of the world. 

--> Is Apple ethical?

Although Apple is ethical overall, there are certain ethical issues that still remain. For example, iPhones are produced with consideration for social responsibility, yet Apple has previously faced accusations of human rights violations, creating e-waste, and tax avoidance.

Test your knowledge with multiple choice flashcards

When was Apple founded?

What was the first Apple’s product?

Where was Apple founded?

Your score:

Join the StudySmarter App and learn efficiently with millions of flashcards and more!

Learn with 30 apple ethical issues flashcards in the free studysmarter app.

Already have an account? Log in

Who founded Apple?

Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak and Ronald Wayne

What was the previous name of Apple Inc.?

Apple Computer Inc.

A personal computer

Which of the founders hand-built Apple’s first personal computer?

Steve Wozniak

What are the four main principles that guide Apple’s business practices?

• confidentiality

of the users don't pass the Apple Ethical Issues quiz! Will you pass the quiz?

How would you like to learn this content?

Free business-studies cheat sheet!

Everything you need to know on . A perfect summary so you can easily remember everything.

Join over 22 million students in learning with our StudySmarter App

The first learning app that truly has everything you need to ace your exams in one place

• Flashcards & Quizzes
• AI Study Assistant
• Study Planner
• Smart Note-Taking

Sign up to highlight and take notes. It’s 100% free.

This is still free to read, it's not a paywall.

You need to register to keep reading, create a free account to save this explanation..

Save explanations to your personalised space and access them anytime, anywhere!

By signing up, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and the Privacy Policy of StudySmarter.

Entdecke Lernmaterial in der StudySmarter-App

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Apple has poached dozens of Google AI experts for its Zurich lab

In 2017, AppleInsider reported on the existence of what's believed to be called the Zurich Vision Lab , an Apple Research facility in Switzerland. It was then understood to be concentrating on the now-defunct Apple Car project.

By 2023 the facility was believed to be looking at all future Apple projects, including AI.

Now according to the Financial Times , the facility is concentrating on AI , and as part of that has been steadily poaching Google staff. This started in 2018 with the very public hiring of John Giannandrea , previously Google's chief of AI and search.

Tuesday's report says that he has since been followed by at least 36 other Google AI experts. The publication based this on a study of LinkedIn profiles, plus job postings and research papers .

Specifically, Apple has reportedly been recruiting for staff in generative AI across two locations in Zurich. One of the two unnamed locations is reported to be so low profile that the Financial Times says a neighbor was unaware of the office's existence.

Even before Giannandrea joined, the publication says that Apple was employing AI staff. It quotes Chuck Wooters, an expert in conversational AI and LLMs who worked on Siri for 21 months from 2013.

"During the time that I was there," he said, "one of the pushes that was happening in the Siri group was to move to a neural architecture for speech recognition."

"Even back then, before large language models took off," he continued, "they were huge advocates of neural networks."

The report concentrates on how Apple has this Zurich facility, but that has been known for seven years. It then connects that to how Apple has been recruiting from Google, and recent Apple research papers have been led by ex-Google staff.

What the publication does not do is put those ex-Google employees into context. It isn't clear, for instance, what proportion of the Zurich Vision Lab staff are from Google.

That said, what is clear is that yet again, these employees and that Zurich facility demonstrate that Apple is not behind the industry in AI.

This is responding to the market and not Apple users, and IMO based on "leaks" from Apple to trusted journalists. There's certainly been a lot of recent drum-beating, evidence that Apple is worried about perceptions in the stock market.....

Why would Apple want to micro-manipulate their share price? They are already fantastically profitable, incredibly competitive, kick-ass technology, a sky-high valuation, etc. Every year they seem to meet or exceed market expectations. It’s Google that is most threatened by generative AI coming along and decimating search — the foundation of Google’s surveillance-advertising business model. 

Alex_V said: Why would Apple want to micro-manipulate their share price?  I doubt that was a serious question, but in case it was... For very obvious reasons it might be in their best interests to "answer to the market" at times, and this is one of those IMHO. Rich people want answers when they begin to lose money on paper with a declining stock price, even if they don't need it for anything.  Apple shares are also used as carrots in recruiting, and forms the majority pay basis for executive leadership who put a LOT of value on what their shares are worth as they divest. 

The term "poaching" has such negative connotations and is an implicit claim of an illegal activity. By using it in the headline you are poisoning the well. Offering incentives for skilled professionals who are currently employed with other firms to join you're firm isn't poaching, it's fully legitimate recruiting. Every company needs a certain amount of movement, i.e., turnover, inflow/outflow, in the ranks to prevent complacency and stagnation. Taking on a new role can also be a very positive career move for someone who has untapped/underutilized potential or has hit a wall with their current employer. Calling it poaching does a disservice to those who are choosing to make a move based on what's being offered to them. It's not like employers get a bad rap for laying off employees. They get rewarded by the stock market if the body count is sufficiently high enough to bump the stock price. Those affected are often treated like disposable refuse, severance package or not.

gatorguy said: Alex_V said: Why would Apple want to micro-manipulate their share price? 

i was making a serious point but the question is rhetorical. The calendar presents Apple with plenty of opportunities to speak to investors, including their product launches, at WWDC, etc 

Top Stories

Save up to $350 on every Apple M3 MacBook Pro, plus get up to $80 off AppleCare

Apple's iOS 18 to streamline task management with unified events and reminders

(PRODUCT)RED is getting our hopes up for a vibrant iPhone 15

Apple to unveil AI-enabled Safari browser alongside new operating systems

Apple headphone shootout: Beats Solo 4 vs AirPods Max

Apple's Q2 2024 earnings results may have some drama — what to expect

Featured deals.

Amazon crushes it with $179 AirPods Pro 2, $299 Apple Watch Series 9 deals

Latest exclusives.

An inside look at Apple's various internal iOS variants that aid development

Apple's iOS 18 AI will be on-device preserving privacy, and not server-side

Apple's macOS 15 to get rare cognitive boost via Project GreyParrot

Latest comparisons.

M3 15-inch MacBook Air vs M3 14-inch MacBook Pro — Ultimate buyer's guide

M3 MacBook Air vs M1 MacBook Air — Compared

Latest news.

LG first to add native Apple Music Dolby Atmos support to smart TVs

LG has become the first smart TV producer to enable support for Dolby Atmos Apple Music support without the use of Apple TV hardware.

Apple Vision Pro could launch in Japan very soon

A reference to Apple Vision Pro accessories being excluded from a limited-time promotion in Japan hints that there may be an early May launch for the headset there.

GM's CarPlay replacement doesn't work well, and has a long road ahead of it

GM's decision to move away from CarPlay was to avoid Apple having too much control over vehicles. It's going to be a bumpy ride for consumers.

Apple is testing improvements that will allow iPhone and Mac users to more intuitively manage their numerous Reminders and Calendar events with iOS 18 and macOS 15, AppleInsider has learned.

iPhone demand is falling, claims component supplier Skyworks

Apple supplier Skyworks has been regarded as a proxy for Apple's iPhone demand, and the company may have some bad news for investors.

Apple TV+ drops MLS Season Pass price for remainder of the season

As the 2024 Major League Soccer championship heads toward its summer midpoint, Apple TV+ is discounting its season pass by 25%.

(PRODUCT)RED is getting our hopes up for a red iPhone 15

A photo from (PRODUCT)RED on social media is teasing us all about a vibrant red iPhone 15, but there is no detail beyond a cryptic reference to donuts.

Samsung has the smartphone sales top spot, but not because of AI or Apple weakness

Samsung has taken the lead in smartphones sales in the first quarter of 2024 as it has for the last few years, but it's not really about AI nor Apple iPhone weakness.

Apple's new "Repair State" feature keeps Find My enabled during repairs

A new feature in iOS 17.5 called "Repair State" keeps Find My enabled on devices being sent in for repair.

Latest Videos

Beats Solo 4 headphones review: Great audio quality and features

iPhone 16 Pro: what to expect from Apple's fall 2024 flagship phone

New iPad Air & iPad Pro models are coming soon - what to expect

Latest reviews.

Unistellar Odyssey Pro review: Unlock pro-level astronomy with your iPhone from your backyard

Ugreen DXP8800 Plus network attached storage review: Good hardware, beta software

Espresso 17 Pro review: Magnetic & modular portable Mac monitor

{{ title }}

{{ summary }}

• Open access
• Published: 18 April 2024

Research ethics and artificial intelligence for global health: perspectives from the global forum on bioethics in research

• James Shaw 1 , 13 ,
• Joseph Ali 2 , 3 ,
• Caesar A. Atuire 4 , 5 ,
• Phaik Yeong Cheah 6 ,
• Armando Guio Español 7 ,
• Judy Wawira Gichoya 8 ,
• Adrienne Hunt 9 ,
• Daudi Jjingo 10 ,
• Katherine Littler 9 ,
• Daniela Paolotti 11 &
• Effy Vayena 12  

BMC Medical Ethics volume  25 , Article number:  46 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1065 Accesses

6 Altmetric

Metrics details

The ethical governance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in health care and public health continues to be an urgent issue for attention in policy, research, and practice. In this paper we report on central themes related to challenges and strategies for promoting ethics in research involving AI in global health, arising from the Global Forum on Bioethics in Research (GFBR), held in Cape Town, South Africa in November 2022.

The GFBR is an annual meeting organized by the World Health Organization and supported by the Wellcome Trust, the US National Institutes of Health, the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the South African MRC. The forum aims to bring together ethicists, researchers, policymakers, research ethics committee members and other actors to engage with challenges and opportunities specifically related to research ethics. In 2022 the focus of the GFBR was “Ethics of AI in Global Health Research”. The forum consisted of 6 case study presentations, 16 governance presentations, and a series of small group and large group discussions. A total of 87 participants attended the forum from 31 countries around the world, representing disciplines of bioethics, AI, health policy, health professional practice, research funding, and bioinformatics. In this paper, we highlight central insights arising from GFBR 2022.

We describe the significance of four thematic insights arising from the forum: (1) Appropriateness of building AI, (2) Transferability of AI systems, (3) Accountability for AI decision-making and outcomes, and (4) Individual consent. We then describe eight recommendations for governance leaders to enhance the ethical governance of AI in global health research, addressing issues such as AI impact assessments, environmental values, and fair partnerships.

Conclusions

The 2022 Global Forum on Bioethics in Research illustrated several innovations in ethical governance of AI for global health research, as well as several areas in need of urgent attention internationally. This summary is intended to inform international and domestic efforts to strengthen research ethics and support the evolution of governance leadership to meet the demands of AI in global health research.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The ethical governance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in health care and public health continues to be an urgent issue for attention in policy, research, and practice [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Beyond the growing number of AI applications being implemented in health care, capabilities of AI models such as Large Language Models (LLMs) expand the potential reach and significance of AI technologies across health-related fields [ 4 , 5 ]. Discussion about effective, ethical governance of AI technologies has spanned a range of governance approaches, including government regulation, organizational decision-making, professional self-regulation, and research ethics review [ 6 , 7 , 8 ]. In this paper, we report on central themes related to challenges and strategies for promoting ethics in research involving AI in global health research, arising from the Global Forum on Bioethics in Research (GFBR), held in Cape Town, South Africa in November 2022. Although applications of AI for research, health care, and public health are diverse and advancing rapidly, the insights generated at the forum remain highly relevant from a global health perspective. After summarizing important context for work in this domain, we highlight categories of ethical issues emphasized at the forum for attention from a research ethics perspective internationally. We then outline strategies proposed for research, innovation, and governance to support more ethical AI for global health.

In this paper, we adopt the definition of AI systems provided by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) as our starting point. Their definition states that an AI system is “a machine-based system that can, for a given set of human-defined objectives, make predictions, recommendations, or decisions influencing real or virtual environments. AI systems are designed to operate with varying levels of autonomy” [ 9 ]. The conceptualization of an algorithm as helping to constitute an AI system, along with hardware, other elements of software, and a particular context of use, illustrates the wide variety of ways in which AI can be applied. We have found it useful to differentiate applications of AI in research as those classified as “AI systems for discovery” and “AI systems for intervention”. An AI system for discovery is one that is intended to generate new knowledge, for example in drug discovery or public health research in which researchers are seeking potential targets for intervention, innovation, or further research. An AI system for intervention is one that directly contributes to enacting an intervention in a particular context, for example informing decision-making at the point of care or assisting with accuracy in a surgical procedure.

The mandate of the GFBR is to take a broad view of what constitutes research and its regulation in global health, with special attention to bioethics in Low- and Middle- Income Countries. AI as a group of technologies demands such a broad view. AI development for health occurs in a variety of environments, including universities and academic health sciences centers where research ethics review remains an important element of the governance of science and innovation internationally [ 10 , 11 ]. In these settings, research ethics committees (RECs; also known by different names such as Institutional Review Boards or IRBs) make decisions about the ethical appropriateness of projects proposed by researchers and other institutional members, ultimately determining whether a given project is allowed to proceed on ethical grounds [ 12 ].

However, research involving AI for health also takes place in large corporations and smaller scale start-ups, which in some jurisdictions fall outside the scope of research ethics regulation. In the domain of AI, the question of what constitutes research also becomes blurred. For example, is the development of an algorithm itself considered a part of the research process? Or only when that algorithm is tested under the formal constraints of a systematic research methodology? In this paper we take an inclusive view, in which AI development is included in the definition of research activity and within scope for our inquiry, regardless of the setting in which it takes place. This broad perspective characterizes the approach to “research ethics” we take in this paper, extending beyond the work of RECs to include the ethical analysis of the wide range of activities that constitute research as the generation of new knowledge and intervention in the world.

Ethical governance of AI in global health

The ethical governance of AI for global health has been widely discussed in recent years. The World Health Organization (WHO) released its guidelines on ethics and governance of AI for health in 2021, endorsing a set of six ethical principles and exploring the relevance of those principles through a variety of use cases. The WHO guidelines also provided an overview of AI governance, defining governance as covering “a range of steering and rule-making functions of governments and other decision-makers, including international health agencies, for the achievement of national health policy objectives conducive to universal health coverage.” (p. 81) The report usefully provided a series of recommendations related to governance of seven domains pertaining to AI for health: data, benefit sharing, the private sector, the public sector, regulation, policy observatories/model legislation, and global governance. The report acknowledges that much work is yet to be done to advance international cooperation on AI governance, especially related to prioritizing voices from Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) in global dialogue.

One important point emphasized in the WHO report that reinforces the broader literature on global governance of AI is the distribution of responsibility across a wide range of actors in the AI ecosystem. This is especially important to highlight when focused on research for global health, which is specifically about work that transcends national borders. Alami et al. (2020) discussed the unique risks raised by AI research in global health, ranging from the unavailability of data in many LMICs required to train locally relevant AI models to the capacity of health systems to absorb new AI technologies that demand the use of resources from elsewhere in the system. These observations illustrate the need to identify the unique issues posed by AI research for global health specifically, and the strategies that can be employed by all those implicated in AI governance to promote ethically responsible use of AI in global health research.

RECs and the regulation of research involving AI

RECs represent an important element of the governance of AI for global health research, and thus warrant further commentary as background to our paper. Despite the importance of RECs, foundational questions have been raised about their capabilities to accurately understand and address ethical issues raised by studies involving AI. Rahimzadeh et al. (2023) outlined how RECs in the United States are under-prepared to align with recent federal policy requiring that RECs review data sharing and management plans with attention to the unique ethical issues raised in AI research for health [ 13 ]. Similar research in South Africa identified variability in understanding of existing regulations and ethical issues associated with health-related big data sharing and management among research ethics committee members [ 14 , 15 ]. The effort to address harms accruing to groups or communities as opposed to individuals whose data are included in AI research has also been identified as a unique challenge for RECs [ 16 , 17 ]. Doerr and Meeder (2022) suggested that current regulatory frameworks for research ethics might actually prevent RECs from adequately addressing such issues, as they are deemed out of scope of REC review [ 16 ]. Furthermore, research in the United Kingdom and Canada has suggested that researchers using AI methods for health tend to distinguish between ethical issues and social impact of their research, adopting an overly narrow view of what constitutes ethical issues in their work [ 18 ].

The challenges for RECs in adequately addressing ethical issues in AI research for health care and public health exceed a straightforward survey of ethical considerations. As Ferretti et al. (2021) contend, some capabilities of RECs adequately cover certain issues in AI-based health research, such as the common occurrence of conflicts of interest where researchers who accept funds from commercial technology providers are implicitly incentivized to produce results that align with commercial interests [ 12 ]. However, some features of REC review require reform to adequately meet ethical needs. Ferretti et al. outlined weaknesses of RECs that are longstanding and those that are novel to AI-related projects, proposing a series of directions for development that are regulatory, procedural, and complementary to REC functionality. The work required on a global scale to update the REC function in response to the demands of research involving AI is substantial.

These issues take greater urgency in the context of global health [ 19 ]. Teixeira da Silva (2022) described the global practice of “ethics dumping”, where researchers from high income countries bring ethically contentious practices to RECs in low-income countries as a strategy to gain approval and move projects forward [ 20 ]. Although not yet systematically documented in AI research for health, risk of ethics dumping in AI research is high. Evidence is already emerging of practices of “health data colonialism”, in which AI researchers and developers from large organizations in high-income countries acquire data to build algorithms in LMICs to avoid stricter regulations [ 21 ]. This specific practice is part of a larger collection of practices that characterize health data colonialism, involving the broader exploitation of data and the populations they represent primarily for commercial gain [ 21 , 22 ]. As an additional complication, AI algorithms trained on data from high-income contexts are unlikely to apply in straightforward ways to LMIC settings [ 21 , 23 ]. In the context of global health, there is widespread acknowledgement about the need to not only enhance the knowledge base of REC members about AI-based methods internationally, but to acknowledge the broader shifts required to encourage their capabilities to more fully address these and other ethical issues associated with AI research for health [ 8 ].

Although RECs are an important part of the story of the ethical governance of AI for global health research, they are not the only part. The responsibilities of supra-national entities such as the World Health Organization, national governments, organizational leaders, commercial AI technology providers, health care professionals, and other groups continue to be worked out internationally. In this context of ongoing work, examining issues that demand attention and strategies to address them remains an urgent and valuable task.

The GFBR is an annual meeting organized by the World Health Organization and supported by the Wellcome Trust, the US National Institutes of Health, the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the South African MRC. The forum aims to bring together ethicists, researchers, policymakers, REC members and other actors to engage with challenges and opportunities specifically related to research ethics. Each year the GFBR meeting includes a series of case studies and keynotes presented in plenary format to an audience of approximately 100 people who have applied and been competitively selected to attend, along with small-group breakout discussions to advance thinking on related issues. The specific topic of the forum changes each year, with past topics including ethical issues in research with people living with mental health conditions (2021), genome editing (2019), and biobanking/data sharing (2018). The forum is intended to remain grounded in the practical challenges of engaging in research ethics, with special interest in low resource settings from a global health perspective. A post-meeting fellowship scheme is open to all LMIC participants, providing a unique opportunity to apply for funding to further explore and address the ethical challenges that are identified during the meeting.

In 2022, the focus of the GFBR was “Ethics of AI in Global Health Research”. The forum consisted of 6 case study presentations (both short and long form) reporting on specific initiatives related to research ethics and AI for health, and 16 governance presentations (both short and long form) reporting on actual approaches to governing AI in different country settings. A keynote presentation from Professor Effy Vayena addressed the topic of the broader context for AI ethics in a rapidly evolving field. A total of 87 participants attended the forum from 31 countries around the world, representing disciplines of bioethics, AI, health policy, health professional practice, research funding, and bioinformatics. The 2-day forum addressed a wide range of themes. The conference report provides a detailed overview of each of the specific topics addressed while a policy paper outlines the cross-cutting themes (both documents are available at the GFBR website: https://www.gfbr.global/past-meetings/16th-forum-cape-town-south-africa-29-30-november-2022/ ). As opposed to providing a detailed summary in this paper, we aim to briefly highlight central issues raised, solutions proposed, and the challenges facing the research ethics community in the years to come.

In this way, our primary aim in this paper is to present a synthesis of the challenges and opportunities raised at the GFBR meeting and in the planning process, followed by our reflections as a group of authors on their significance for governance leaders in the coming years. We acknowledge that the views represented at the meeting and in our results are a partial representation of the universe of views on this topic; however, the GFBR leadership invested a great deal of resources in convening a deeply diverse and thoughtful group of researchers and practitioners working on themes of bioethics related to AI for global health including those based in LMICs. We contend that it remains rare to convene such a strong group for an extended time and believe that many of the challenges and opportunities raised demand attention for more ethical futures of AI for health. Nonetheless, our results are primarily descriptive and are thus not explicitly grounded in a normative argument. We make effort in the Discussion section to contextualize our results by describing their significance and connecting them to broader efforts to reform global health research and practice.

Uniquely important ethical issues for AI in global health research

Presentations and group dialogue over the course of the forum raised several issues for consideration, and here we describe four overarching themes for the ethical governance of AI in global health research. Brief descriptions of each issue can be found in Table  1 . Reports referred to throughout the paper are available at the GFBR website provided above.

The first overarching thematic issue relates to the appropriateness of building AI technologies in response to health-related challenges in the first place. Case study presentations referred to initiatives where AI technologies were highly appropriate, such as in ear shape biometric identification to more accurately link electronic health care records to individual patients in Zambia (Alinani Simukanga). Although important ethical issues were raised with respect to privacy, trust, and community engagement in this initiative, the AI-based solution was appropriately matched to the challenge of accurately linking electronic records to specific patient identities. In contrast, forum participants raised questions about the appropriateness of an initiative using AI to improve the quality of handwashing practices in an acute care hospital in India (Niyoshi Shah), which led to gaming the algorithm. Overall, participants acknowledged the dangers of techno-solutionism, in which AI researchers and developers treat AI technologies as the most obvious solutions to problems that in actuality demand much more complex strategies to address [ 24 ]. However, forum participants agreed that RECs in different contexts have differing degrees of power to raise issues of the appropriateness of an AI-based intervention.

The second overarching thematic issue related to whether and how AI-based systems transfer from one national health context to another. One central issue raised by a number of case study presentations related to the challenges of validating an algorithm with data collected in a local environment. For example, one case study presentation described a project that would involve the collection of personally identifiable data for sensitive group identities, such as tribe, clan, or religion, in the jurisdictions involved (South Africa, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda and the US; Gakii Masunga). Doing so would enable the team to ensure that those groups were adequately represented in the dataset to ensure the resulting algorithm was not biased against specific community groups when deployed in that context. However, some members of these communities might desire to be represented in the dataset, whereas others might not, illustrating the need to balance autonomy and inclusivity. It was also widely recognized that collecting these data is an immense challenge, particularly when historically oppressive practices have led to a low-trust environment for international organizations and the technologies they produce. It is important to note that in some countries such as South Africa and Rwanda, it is illegal to collect information such as race and tribal identities, re-emphasizing the importance for cultural awareness and avoiding “one size fits all” solutions.

The third overarching thematic issue is related to understanding accountabilities for both the impacts of AI technologies and governance decision-making regarding their use. Where global health research involving AI leads to longer-term harms that might fall outside the usual scope of issues considered by a REC, who is to be held accountable, and how? This question was raised as one that requires much further attention, with law being mixed internationally regarding the mechanisms available to hold researchers, innovators, and their institutions accountable over the longer term. However, it was recognized in breakout group discussion that many jurisdictions are developing strong data protection regimes related specifically to international collaboration for research involving health data. For example, Kenya’s Data Protection Act requires that any internationally funded projects have a local principal investigator who will hold accountability for how data are shared and used [ 25 ]. The issue of research partnerships with commercial entities was raised by many participants in the context of accountability, pointing toward the urgent need for clear principles related to strategies for engagement with commercial technology companies in global health research.

The fourth and final overarching thematic issue raised here is that of consent. The issue of consent was framed by the widely shared recognition that models of individual, explicit consent might not produce a supportive environment for AI innovation that relies on the secondary uses of health-related datasets to build AI algorithms. Given this recognition, approaches such as community oversight of health data uses were suggested as a potential solution. However, the details of implementing such community oversight mechanisms require much further attention, particularly given the unique perspectives on health data in different country settings in global health research. Furthermore, some uses of health data do continue to require consent. One case study of South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Ethiopia and Uganda suggested that when health data are shared across borders, individual consent remains necessary when data is transferred from certain countries (Nezerith Cengiz). Broader clarity is necessary to support the ethical governance of health data uses for AI in global health research.

Recommendations for ethical governance of AI in global health research

Dialogue at the forum led to a range of suggestions for promoting ethical conduct of AI research for global health, related to the various roles of actors involved in the governance of AI research broadly defined. The strategies are written for actors we refer to as “governance leaders”, those people distributed throughout the AI for global health research ecosystem who are responsible for ensuring the ethical and socially responsible conduct of global health research involving AI (including researchers themselves). These include RECs, government regulators, health care leaders, health professionals, corporate social accountability officers, and others. Enacting these strategies would bolster the ethical governance of AI for global health more generally, enabling multiple actors to fulfill their roles related to governing research and development activities carried out across multiple organizations, including universities, academic health sciences centers, start-ups, and technology corporations. Specific suggestions are summarized in Table  2 .

First, forum participants suggested that governance leaders including RECs, should remain up to date on recent advances in the regulation of AI for health. Regulation of AI for health advances rapidly and takes on different forms in jurisdictions around the world. RECs play an important role in governance, but only a partial role; it was deemed important for RECs to acknowledge how they fit within a broader governance ecosystem in order to more effectively address the issues within their scope. Not only RECs but organizational leaders responsible for procurement, researchers, and commercial actors should all commit to efforts to remain up to date about the relevant approaches to regulating AI for health care and public health in jurisdictions internationally. In this way, governance can more adequately remain up to date with advances in regulation.

Second, forum participants suggested that governance leaders should focus on ethical governance of health data as a basis for ethical global health AI research. Health data are considered the foundation of AI development, being used to train AI algorithms for various uses [ 26 ]. By focusing on ethical governance of health data generation, sharing, and use, multiple actors will help to build an ethical foundation for AI development among global health researchers.

Third, forum participants believed that governance processes should incorporate AI impact assessments where appropriate. An AI impact assessment is the process of evaluating the potential effects, both positive and negative, of implementing an AI algorithm on individuals, society, and various stakeholders, generally over time frames specified in advance of implementation [ 27 ]. Although not all types of AI research in global health would warrant an AI impact assessment, this is especially relevant for those studies aiming to implement an AI system for intervention into health care or public health. Organizations such as RECs can use AI impact assessments to boost understanding of potential harms at the outset of a research project, encouraging researchers to more deeply consider potential harms in the development of their study.

Fourth, forum participants suggested that governance decisions should incorporate the use of environmental impact assessments, or at least the incorporation of environment values when assessing the potential impact of an AI system. An environmental impact assessment involves evaluating and anticipating the potential environmental effects of a proposed project to inform ethical decision-making that supports sustainability [ 28 ]. Although a relatively new consideration in research ethics conversations [ 29 ], the environmental impact of building technologies is a crucial consideration for the public health commitment to environmental sustainability. Governance leaders can use environmental impact assessments to boost understanding of potential environmental harms linked to AI research projects in global health over both the shorter and longer terms.

Fifth, forum participants suggested that governance leaders should require stronger transparency in the development of AI algorithms in global health research. Transparency was considered essential in the design and development of AI algorithms for global health to ensure ethical and accountable decision-making throughout the process. Furthermore, whether and how researchers have considered the unique contexts into which such algorithms may be deployed can be surfaced through stronger transparency, for example in describing what primary considerations were made at the outset of the project and which stakeholders were consulted along the way. Sharing information about data provenance and methods used in AI development will also enhance the trustworthiness of the AI-based research process.

Sixth, forum participants suggested that governance leaders can encourage or require community engagement at various points throughout an AI project. It was considered that engaging patients and communities is crucial in AI algorithm development to ensure that the technology aligns with community needs and values. However, participants acknowledged that this is not a straightforward process. Effective community engagement requires lengthy commitments to meeting with and hearing from diverse communities in a given setting, and demands a particular set of skills in communication and dialogue that are not possessed by all researchers. Encouraging AI researchers to begin this process early and build long-term partnerships with community members is a promising strategy to deepen community engagement in AI research for global health. One notable recommendation was that research funders have an opportunity to incentivize and enable community engagement with funds dedicated to these activities in AI research in global health.

Seventh, forum participants suggested that governance leaders can encourage researchers to build strong, fair partnerships between institutions and individuals across country settings. In a context of longstanding imbalances in geopolitical and economic power, fair partnerships in global health demand a priori commitments to share benefits related to advances in medical technologies, knowledge, and financial gains. Although enforcement of this point might be beyond the remit of RECs, commentary will encourage researchers to consider stronger, fairer partnerships in global health in the longer term.

Eighth, it became evident that it is necessary to explore new forms of regulatory experimentation given the complexity of regulating a technology of this nature. In addition, the health sector has a series of particularities that make it especially complicated to generate rules that have not been previously tested. Several participants highlighted the desire to promote spaces for experimentation such as regulatory sandboxes or innovation hubs in health. These spaces can have several benefits for addressing issues surrounding the regulation of AI in the health sector, such as: (i) increasing the capacities and knowledge of health authorities about this technology; (ii) identifying the major problems surrounding AI regulation in the health sector; (iii) establishing possibilities for exchange and learning with other authorities; (iv) promoting innovation and entrepreneurship in AI in health; and (vi) identifying the need to regulate AI in this sector and update other existing regulations.

Ninth and finally, forum participants believed that the capabilities of governance leaders need to evolve to better incorporate expertise related to AI in ways that make sense within a given jurisdiction. With respect to RECs, for example, it might not make sense for every REC to recruit a member with expertise in AI methods. Rather, it will make more sense in some jurisdictions to consult with members of the scientific community with expertise in AI when research protocols are submitted that demand such expertise. Furthermore, RECs and other approaches to research governance in jurisdictions around the world will need to evolve in order to adopt the suggestions outlined above, developing processes that apply specifically to the ethical governance of research using AI methods in global health.

Research involving the development and implementation of AI technologies continues to grow in global health, posing important challenges for ethical governance of AI in global health research around the world. In this paper we have summarized insights from the 2022 GFBR, focused specifically on issues in research ethics related to AI for global health research. We summarized four thematic challenges for governance related to AI in global health research and nine suggestions arising from presentations and dialogue at the forum. In this brief discussion section, we present an overarching observation about power imbalances that frames efforts to evolve the role of governance in global health research, and then outline two important opportunity areas as the field develops to meet the challenges of AI in global health research.

Dialogue about power is not unfamiliar in global health, especially given recent contributions exploring what it would mean to de-colonize global health research, funding, and practice [ 30 , 31 ]. Discussions of research ethics applied to AI research in global health contexts are deeply infused with power imbalances. The existing context of global health is one in which high-income countries primarily located in the “Global North” charitably invest in projects taking place primarily in the “Global South” while recouping knowledge, financial, and reputational benefits [ 32 ]. With respect to AI development in particular, recent examples of digital colonialism frame dialogue about global partnerships, raising attention to the role of large commercial entities and global financial capitalism in global health research [ 21 , 22 ]. Furthermore, the power of governance organizations such as RECs to intervene in the process of AI research in global health varies widely around the world, depending on the authorities assigned to them by domestic research governance policies. These observations frame the challenges outlined in our paper, highlighting the difficulties associated with making meaningful change in this field.

Despite these overarching challenges of the global health research context, there are clear strategies for progress in this domain. Firstly, AI innovation is rapidly evolving, which means approaches to the governance of AI for health are rapidly evolving too. Such rapid evolution presents an important opportunity for governance leaders to clarify their vision and influence over AI innovation in global health research, boosting the expertise, structure, and functionality required to meet the demands of research involving AI. Secondly, the research ethics community has strong international ties, linked to a global scholarly community that is committed to sharing insights and best practices around the world. This global community can be leveraged to coordinate efforts to produce advances in the capabilities and authorities of governance leaders to meaningfully govern AI research for global health given the challenges summarized in our paper.

Limitations

Our paper includes two specific limitations that we address explicitly here. First, it is still early in the lifetime of the development of applications of AI for use in global health, and as such, the global community has had limited opportunity to learn from experience. For example, there were many fewer case studies, which detail experiences with the actual implementation of an AI technology, submitted to GFBR 2022 for consideration than was expected. In contrast, there were many more governance reports submitted, which detail the processes and outputs of governance processes that anticipate the development and dissemination of AI technologies. This observation represents both a success and a challenge. It is a success that so many groups are engaging in anticipatory governance of AI technologies, exploring evidence of their likely impacts and governing technologies in novel and well-designed ways. It is a challenge that there is little experience to build upon of the successful implementation of AI technologies in ways that have limited harms while promoting innovation. Further experience with AI technologies in global health will contribute to revising and enhancing the challenges and recommendations we have outlined in our paper.

Second, global trends in the politics and economics of AI technologies are evolving rapidly. Although some nations are advancing detailed policy approaches to regulating AI more generally, including for uses in health care and public health, the impacts of corporate investments in AI and political responses related to governance remain to be seen. The excitement around large language models (LLMs) and large multimodal models (LMMs) has drawn deeper attention to the challenges of regulating AI in any general sense, opening dialogue about health sector-specific regulations. The direction of this global dialogue, strongly linked to high-profile corporate actors and multi-national governance institutions, will strongly influence the development of boundaries around what is possible for the ethical governance of AI for global health. We have written this paper at a point when these developments are proceeding rapidly, and as such, we acknowledge that our recommendations will need updating as the broader field evolves.

Ultimately, coordination and collaboration between many stakeholders in the research ethics ecosystem will be necessary to strengthen the ethical governance of AI in global health research. The 2022 GFBR illustrated several innovations in ethical governance of AI for global health research, as well as several areas in need of urgent attention internationally. This summary is intended to inform international and domestic efforts to strengthen research ethics and support the evolution of governance leadership to meet the demands of AI in global health research.

Data availability

All data and materials analyzed to produce this paper are available on the GFBR website: https://www.gfbr.global/past-meetings/16th-forum-cape-town-south-africa-29-30-november-2022/ .

Clark P, Kim J, Aphinyanaphongs Y, Marketing, Food US. Drug Administration Clearance of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Enabled Software in and as Medical devices: a systematic review. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(7):e2321792–2321792.

Article   Google Scholar  

Potnis KC, Ross JS, Aneja S, Gross CP, Richman IB. Artificial intelligence in breast cancer screening: evaluation of FDA device regulation and future recommendations. JAMA Intern Med. 2022;182(12):1306–12.

Siala H, Wang Y. SHIFTing artificial intelligence to be responsible in healthcare: a systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2022;296:114782.

Yang X, Chen A, PourNejatian N, Shin HC, Smith KE, Parisien C, et al. A large language model for electronic health records. NPJ Digit Med. 2022;5(1):194.

Meskó B, Topol EJ. The imperative for regulatory oversight of large language models (or generative AI) in healthcare. NPJ Digit Med. 2023;6(1):120.

Jobin A, Ienca M, Vayena E. The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nat Mach Intell. 2019;1(9):389–99.

Minssen T, Vayena E, Cohen IG. The challenges for Regulating Medical Use of ChatGPT and other large Language models. JAMA. 2023.

Ho CWL, Malpani R. Scaling up the research ethics framework for healthcare machine learning as global health ethics and governance. Am J Bioeth. 2022;22(5):36–8.

Yeung K. Recommendation of the council on artificial intelligence (OECD). Int Leg Mater. 2020;59(1):27–34.

Maddox TM, Rumsfeld JS, Payne PR. Questions for artificial intelligence in health care. JAMA. 2019;321(1):31–2.

Dzau VJ, Balatbat CA, Ellaissi WF. Revisiting academic health sciences systems a decade later: discovery to health to population to society. Lancet. 2021;398(10318):2300–4.

Ferretti A, Ienca M, Sheehan M, Blasimme A, Dove ES, Farsides B, et al. Ethics review of big data research: what should stay and what should be reformed? BMC Med Ethics. 2021;22(1):1–13.

Rahimzadeh V, Serpico K, Gelinas L. Institutional review boards need new skills to review data sharing and management plans. Nat Med. 2023;1–3.

Kling S, Singh S, Burgess TL, Nair G. The role of an ethics advisory committee in data science research in sub-saharan Africa. South Afr J Sci. 2023;119(5–6):1–3.

Google Scholar  

Cengiz N, Kabanda SM, Esterhuizen TM, Moodley K. Exploring perspectives of research ethics committee members on the governance of big data in sub-saharan Africa. South Afr J Sci. 2023;119(5–6):1–9.

Doerr M, Meeder S. Big health data research and group harm: the scope of IRB review. Ethics Hum Res. 2022;44(4):34–8.

Ballantyne A, Stewart C. Big data and public-private partnerships in healthcare and research: the application of an ethics framework for big data in health and research. Asian Bioeth Rev. 2019;11(3):315–26.

Samuel G, Chubb J, Derrick G. Boundaries between research ethics and ethical research use in artificial intelligence health research. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2021;16(3):325–37.

Murphy K, Di Ruggiero E, Upshur R, Willison DJ, Malhotra N, Cai JC, et al. Artificial intelligence for good health: a scoping review of the ethics literature. BMC Med Ethics. 2021;22(1):1–17.

Teixeira da Silva JA. Handling ethics dumping and neo-colonial research: from the laboratory to the academic literature. J Bioethical Inq. 2022;19(3):433–43.

Ferryman K. The dangers of data colonialism in precision public health. Glob Policy. 2021;12:90–2.

Couldry N, Mejias UA. Data colonialism: rethinking big data’s relation to the contemporary subject. Telev New Media. 2019;20(4):336–49.

Organization WH. Ethics and governance of artificial intelligence for health: WHO guidance. 2021.

Metcalf J, Moss E. Owning ethics: corporate logics, silicon valley, and the institutionalization of ethics. Soc Res Int Q. 2019;86(2):449–76.

Data Protection Act - OFFICE OF THE DATA PROTECTION COMMISSIONER KENYA [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2023 Sep 30]. https://www.odpc.go.ke/dpa-act/ .

Sharon T, Lucivero F. Introduction to the special theme: the expansion of the health data ecosystem–rethinking data ethics and governance. Big Data & Society. Volume 6. London, England: SAGE Publications Sage UK; 2019. p. 2053951719852969.

Reisman D, Schultz J, Crawford K, Whittaker M. Algorithmic impact assessments: a practical Framework for Public Agency. AI Now. 2018.

Morgan RK. Environmental impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Apprais. 2012;30(1):5–14.

Samuel G, Richie C. Reimagining research ethics to include environmental sustainability: a principled approach, including a case study of data-driven health research. J Med Ethics. 2023;49(6):428–33.

Kwete X, Tang K, Chen L, Ren R, Chen Q, Wu Z, et al. Decolonizing global health: what should be the target of this movement and where does it lead us? Glob Health Res Policy. 2022;7(1):3.

Abimbola S, Asthana S, Montenegro C, Guinto RR, Jumbam DT, Louskieter L, et al. Addressing power asymmetries in global health: imperatives in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS Med. 2021;18(4):e1003604.

Benatar S. Politics, power, poverty and global health: systems and frames. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016;5(10):599.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the outstanding contributions of the attendees of GFBR 2022 in Cape Town, South Africa. This paper is authored by members of the GFBR 2022 Planning Committee. We would like to acknowledge additional members Tamra Lysaght, National University of Singapore, and Niresh Bhagwandin, South African Medical Research Council, for their input during the planning stages and as reviewers of the applications to attend the Forum.

This work was supported by Wellcome [222525/Z/21/Z], the US National Institutes of Health, the UK Medical Research Council (part of UK Research and Innovation), and the South African Medical Research Council through funding to the Global Forum on Bioethics in Research.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Physical Therapy, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA

Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA

Department of Philosophy and Classics, University of Ghana, Legon-Accra, Ghana

Caesar A. Atuire

Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand

Phaik Yeong Cheah

Berkman Klein Center, Harvard University, Bogotá, Colombia

Armando Guio Español

Department of Radiology and Informatics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA

Judy Wawira Gichoya

Health Ethics & Governance Unit, Research for Health Department, Science Division, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland

Adrienne Hunt & Katherine Littler

African Center of Excellence in Bioinformatics and Data Intensive Science, Infectious Diseases Institute, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda

Daudi Jjingo

ISI Foundation, Turin, Italy

Daniela Paolotti

Department of Health Sciences and Technology, ETH Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland

Effy Vayena

Joint Centre for Bioethics, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

JS led the writing, contributed to conceptualization and analysis, critically reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of this paper, and provided final approval of the paper. JA contributed to conceptualization and analysis, critically reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of this paper, and provided final approval of the paper. CA contributed to conceptualization and analysis, critically reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of this paper, and provided final approval of the paper. PYC contributed to conceptualization and analysis, critically reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of this paper, and provided final approval of the paper. AE contributed to conceptualization and analysis, critically reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of this paper, and provided final approval of the paper. JWG contributed to conceptualization and analysis, critically reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of this paper, and provided final approval of the paper. AH contributed to conceptualization and analysis, critically reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of this paper, and provided final approval of the paper. DJ contributed to conceptualization and analysis, critically reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of this paper, and provided final approval of the paper. KL contributed to conceptualization and analysis, critically reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of this paper, and provided final approval of the paper. DP contributed to conceptualization and analysis, critically reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of this paper, and provided final approval of the paper. EV contributed to conceptualization and analysis, critically reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of this paper, and provided final approval of the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James Shaw .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Shaw, J., Ali, J., Atuire, C.A. et al. Research ethics and artificial intelligence for global health: perspectives from the global forum on bioethics in research. BMC Med Ethics 25 , 46 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01044-w

Download citation

Received : 31 October 2023

Accepted : 01 April 2024

Published : 18 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01044-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Artificial intelligence
• Machine learning
• Research ethics
• Global health

BMC Medical Ethics

ISSN: 1472-6939

• General enquiries: [email protected]

McCombs School of Business

• Español ( Spanish )

Videos Concepts Unwrapped View All 36 short illustrated videos explain behavioral ethics concepts and basic ethics principles. Concepts Unwrapped: Sports Edition View All 10 short videos introduce athletes to behavioral ethics concepts. Ethics Defined (Glossary) View All 58 animated videos - 1 to 2 minutes each - define key ethics terms and concepts. Ethics in Focus View All One-of-a-kind videos highlight the ethical aspects of current and historical subjects. Giving Voice To Values View All Eight short videos present the 7 principles of values-driven leadership from Gentile's Giving Voice to Values. In It To Win View All A documentary and six short videos reveal the behavioral ethics biases in super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff's story. Scandals Illustrated View All 30 videos - one minute each - introduce newsworthy scandals with ethical insights and case studies. Video Series

Case Studies UT Star Icon

Case Studies

More than 70 cases pair ethics concepts with real world situations. From journalism, performing arts, and scientific research to sports, law, and business, these case studies explore current and historic ethical dilemmas, their motivating biases, and their consequences. Each case includes discussion questions, related videos, and a bibliography.

A Million Little Pieces

James Frey’s popular memoir stirred controversy and media attention after it was revealed to contain numerous exaggerations and fabrications.

Abramoff: Lobbying Congress

Super-lobbyist Abramoff was caught in a scheme to lobby against his own clients. Was a corrupt individual or a corrupt system – or both – to blame?

Apple Suppliers & Labor Practices

Is tech company Apple, Inc. ethically obligated to oversee the questionable working conditions of other companies further down their supply chain?

Approaching the Presidency: Roosevelt & Taft

Some presidents view their responsibilities in strictly legal terms, others according to duty. Roosevelt and Taft took two extreme approaches.

Appropriating “Hope”

Fairey’s portrait of Barack Obama raised debate over the extent to which an artist can use and modify another’s artistic work, yet still call it one’s own.

Arctic Offshore Drilling

Competing groups frame the debate over oil drilling off Alaska’s coast in varying ways depending on their environmental and economic interests.

Banning Burkas: Freedom or Discrimination?

The French law banning women from wearing burkas in public sparked debate about discrimination and freedom of religion.

Birthing Vaccine Skepticism

Wakefield published an article riddled with inaccuracies and conflicts of interest that created significant vaccine hesitancy regarding the MMR vaccine.

Blurred Lines of Copyright

Marvin Gaye’s Estate won a lawsuit against Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams for the hit song “Blurred Lines,” which had a similar feel to one of his songs.

Bullfighting: Art or Not?

Bullfighting has been a prominent cultural and artistic event for centuries, but in recent decades it has faced increasing criticism for animal rights’ abuse.

Buying Green: Consumer Behavior

Do purchasing green products, such as organic foods and electric cars, give consumers the moral license to indulge in unethical behavior?

Cadavers in Car Safety Research

Engineers at Heidelberg University insist that the use of human cadavers in car safety research is ethical because their research can save lives.

Cardinals’ Computer Hacking

St. Louis Cardinals scouting director Chris Correa hacked into the Houston Astros’ webmail system, leading to legal repercussions and a lifetime ban from MLB.

Cheating: Atlanta’s School Scandal

Teachers and administrators at Parks Middle School adjust struggling students’ test scores in an effort to save their school from closure.

Cheating: Sign-Stealing in MLB

The Houston Astros’ sign-stealing scheme rocked the baseball world, leading to a game-changing MLB investigation and fallout.

Cheating: UNC’s Academic Fraud

UNC’s academic fraud scandal uncovered an 18-year scheme of unchecked coursework and fraudulent classes that enabled student-athletes to play sports.

Cheney v. U.S. District Court

A controversial case focuses on Justice Scalia’s personal friendship with Vice President Cheney and the possible conflict of interest it poses to the case.

Christina Fallin: “Appropriate Culturation?”

After Fallin posted a picture of herself wearing a Plain’s headdress on social media, uproar emerged over cultural appropriation and Fallin’s intentions.

Climate Change & the Paris Deal

While climate change poses many abstract problems, the actions (or inactions) of today’s populations will have tangible effects on future generations.

Cover-Up on Campus

While the Baylor University football team was winning on the field, university officials failed to take action when allegations of sexual assault by student athletes emerged.

Covering Female Athletes

Sports Illustrated stirs controversy when their cover photo of an Olympic skier seems to focus more on her physical appearance than her athletic abilities.

Covering Yourself? Journalists and the Bowl Championship

Can news outlets covering the Bowl Championship Series fairly report sports news if their own polls were used to create the news?

Cyber Harassment

After a student defames a middle school teacher on social media, the teacher confronts the student in class and posts a video of the confrontation online.

Defending Freedom of Tweets?

Running back Rashard Mendenhall receives backlash from fans after criticizing the celebration of the assassination of Osama Bin Laden in a tweet.

Dennis Kozlowski: Living Large

Dennis Kozlowski was an effective leader for Tyco in his first few years as CEO, but eventually faced criminal charges over his use of company assets.

Digital Downloads

File-sharing program Napster sparked debate over the legal and ethical dimensions of downloading unauthorized copies of copyrighted music.

Dr. V’s Magical Putter

Journalist Caleb Hannan outed Dr. V as a trans woman, sparking debate over the ethics of Hannan’s reporting, as well its role in Dr. V’s suicide.

East Germany’s Doping Machine

From 1968 to the late 1980s, East Germany (GDR) doped some 9,000 athletes to gain success in international athletic competitions despite being aware of the unfortunate side effects.

Ebola & American Intervention

Did the dispatch of U.S. military units to Liberia to aid in humanitarian relief during the Ebola epidemic help or hinder the process?

Edward Snowden: Traitor or Hero?

Was Edward Snowden’s release of confidential government documents ethically justifiable?

Ethical Pitfalls in Action

Why do good people do bad things? Behavioral ethics is the science of moral decision-making, which explores why and how people make the ethical (and unethical) decisions that they do.

Ethical Use of Home DNA Testing

The rising popularity of at-home DNA testing kits raises questions about privacy and consumer rights.

Flying the Confederate Flag

A heated debate ensues over whether or not the Confederate flag should be removed from the South Carolina State House grounds.

Freedom of Speech on Campus

In the wake of racially motivated offenses, student protests sparked debate over the roles of free speech, deliberation, and tolerance on campus.

Freedom vs. Duty in Clinical Social Work

What should social workers do when their personal values come in conflict with the clients they are meant to serve?

Full Disclosure: Manipulating Donors

When an intern witnesses a donor making a large gift to a non-profit organization under misleading circumstances, she struggles with what to do.

Gaming the System: The VA Scandal

The Veterans Administration’s incentives were meant to spur more efficient and productive healthcare, but not all administrators complied as intended.

German Police Battalion 101

During the Holocaust, ordinary Germans became willing killers even though they could have opted out from murdering their Jewish neighbors.

Head Injuries & American Football

Many studies have linked traumatic brain injuries and related conditions to American football, creating controversy around the safety of the sport.

Head Injuries & the NFL

American football is a rough and dangerous game and its impact on the players’ brain health has sparked a hotly contested debate.

Healthcare Obligations: Personal vs. Institutional

A medical doctor must make a difficult decision when informing patients of the effectiveness of flu shots while upholding institutional recommendations.

High Stakes Testing

In the wake of the No Child Left Behind Act, parents, teachers, and school administrators take different positions on how to assess student achievement.

In-FUR-mercials: Advertising & Adoption

When the Lied Animal Shelter faces a spike in animal intake, an advertising agency uses its moral imagination to increase pet adoptions.

Krogh & the Watergate Scandal

Egil Krogh was a young lawyer working for the Nixon Administration whose ethics faded from view when asked to play a part in the Watergate break-in.

Limbaugh on Drug Addiction

Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh argued that drug abuse was a choice, not a disease. He later became addicted to painkillers.

U.S. Olympic swimmer Ryan Lochte’s “over-exaggeration” of an incident at the 2016 Rio Olympics led to very real consequences.

Meet Me at Starbucks

Two black men were arrested after an employee called the police on them, prompting Starbucks to implement “racial-bias” training across all its stores.

Myanmar Amber

Buying amber could potentially fund an ethnic civil war, but refraining allows collectors to acquire important specimens that could be used for research.

Negotiating Bankruptcy

Bankruptcy lawyer Gellene successfully represented a mining company during a major reorganization, but failed to disclose potential conflicts of interest.

Pao & Gender Bias

Ellen Pao stirred debate in the venture capital and tech industries when she filed a lawsuit against her employer on grounds of gender discrimination.

Pardoning Nixon

One month after Richard Nixon resigned from the presidency, Gerald Ford made the controversial decision to issue Nixon a full pardon.

Patient Autonomy & Informed Consent

Nursing staff and family members struggle with informed consent when taking care of a patient who has been deemed legally incompetent.

Prenatal Diagnosis & Parental Choice

Debate has emerged over the ethics of prenatal diagnosis and reproductive freedom in instances where testing has revealed genetic abnormalities.

Reporting on Robin Williams

After Robin Williams took his own life, news media covered the story in great detail, leading many to argue that such reporting violated the family’s privacy.

Responding to Child Migration

An influx of children migrants posed logistical and ethical dilemmas for U.S. authorities while intensifying ongoing debate about immigration.

Retracting Research: The Case of Chandok v. Klessig

A researcher makes the difficult decision to retract a published, peer-reviewed article after the original research results cannot be reproduced.

Sacking Social Media in College Sports

In the wake of questionable social media use by college athletes, the head coach at University of South Carolina bans his players from using Twitter.

Selling Enron

Following the deregulation of electricity markets in California, private energy company Enron profited greatly, but at a dire cost.

Snyder v. Phelps

Freedom of speech was put on trial in a case involving the Westboro Baptist Church and their protesting at the funeral of U.S. Marine Matthew Snyder.

Something Fishy at the Paralympics

Rampant cheating has plagued the Paralympics over the years, compromising the credibility and sportsmanship of Paralympian athletes.

Sports Blogs: The Wild West of Sports Journalism?

Deadspin pays an anonymous source for information related to NFL star Brett Favre, sparking debate over the ethics of “checkbook journalism.”

Stangl & the Holocaust

Franz Stangl was the most effective Nazi administrator in Poland, killing nearly one million Jews at Treblinka, but he claimed he was simply following orders.

Teaching Blackface: A Lesson on Stereotypes

A teacher was put on leave for showing a blackface video during a lesson on racial segregation, sparking discussion over how to teach about stereotypes.

The Astros’ Sign-Stealing Scandal

The Houston Astros rode a wave of success, culminating in a World Series win, but it all came crashing down when their sign-stealing scheme was revealed.

The Central Park Five

Despite the indisputable and overwhelming evidence of the innocence of the Central Park Five, some involved in the case refuse to believe it.

The CIA Leak

Legal and political fallout follows from the leak of classified information that led to the identification of CIA agent Valerie Plame.

The Collapse of Barings Bank

When faced with growing losses, investment banker Nick Leeson took big risks in an attempt to get out from under the losses. He lost.

The Costco Model

How can companies promote positive treatment of employees and benefit from leading with the best practices? Costco offers a model.

The FBI & Apple Security vs. Privacy

How can tech companies and government organizations strike a balance between maintaining national security and protecting user privacy?

The Miss Saigon Controversy

When a white actor was cast for the half-French, half-Vietnamese character in the Broadway production of Miss Saigon , debate ensued.

The Sandusky Scandal

Following the conviction of assistant coach Jerry Sandusky for sexual abuse, debate continues on how much university officials and head coach Joe Paterno knew of the crimes.

The Varsity Blues Scandal

A college admissions prep advisor told wealthy parents that while there were front doors into universities and back doors, he had created a side door that was worth exploring.

Providing radiation therapy to cancer patients, Therac-25 had malfunctions that resulted in 6 deaths. Who is accountable when technology causes harm?

Welfare Reform

The Welfare Reform Act changed how welfare operated, intensifying debate over the government’s role in supporting the poor through direct aid.

Wells Fargo and Moral Emotions

In a settlement with regulators, Wells Fargo Bank admitted that it had created as many as two million accounts for customers without their permission.

Stay Informed

Support our work.

Beats Solo 4 — On-Ear Wireless Headphones – Cloud Pink

Product Information

The classic. made new..

• Spatial Audio with Dynamic Head Tracking¹
• Lossless audio via USB-C or 3.5 mm audio cable²
• Up to 50 hours of Battery Life³
• Compatible with iOS and Android

Re-engineered for incredible sound.

Upgraded drivers. Rebalanced acoustics. Improved frequency response. Custom-built 40 mm transducers minimize electronic artifacts, latency, and distortion for extraordinary clarity and range.

Like being surrounded by 64 speakers at once.

Personalized Spatial Audio with dynamic head tracking uses built-in gyroscopes and accelerometers to surround you with sound as you move, creating a truly immersive listening experience.¹

Powerful sound. Ultralight fit.

The ergonomic design was developed with comfort in mind, starting with how light they are — at just 217 grams, you can almost forget you’re wearing them.

Softer than soft.

The UltraPlush ear cushions are designed for durability and a soft, light touch for all-day comfort.

Fits great to sound great.

The carefully balanced flex-grip headband, customizable sliders and ergonomically angled ear cups ensure that Beats Solo 4 is comfortable and stays put to deliver sound optimally to your ears.

Up to 50 hours of battery life.

That’s right — up to 50 hours of battery power.³ That’s a lot of reps. Or flights. Or calls. If you’re low on power, Fast Fuel means charging for just 10 minutes gives up to 5 hours of playback.⁴

No battery? No problem.

Listening via the 3.5 mm audio cable doesn’t require any battery power at all — meaning you can enjoy truly endless playback without ever needing to charge.

High-resolution lossless audio.

Designed with a built-in Digital Analog Converter (DAC), Beats Solo 4 can deliver high-resolution lossless audio.² Plug in via USB-C or 3.5 mm audio cable when you want to experience more richly detailed texture in your music.

Apple or Android? Yes.

Whether you’re on iOS or Android, you can enjoy the same seamless compatibility.⁵ One touch pairing. Automatic pre-pairing across your devices. Find My and Find My Device. Audio sharing⁶ Hey Siri⁷

Leveling up the iconic style.

Beats Solo 4 comes in new premium colors and finishes, including brushed steel hinges.

Style that travels well.

With a compact foldable design and soft protective case, Beats Solo 4 is built to go everywhere you do.

Exceptional call quality.

Beats Solo 4 has multiple digital beam-forming microphones powered by an advanced voice-learning algorithm for environmental noise suppression. The algorithm was tested in over 7,000 hours of noisy environments to be better able to isolate your voice.

Custom acoustic architecture with upgraded drivers to deliver powerful, balanced Beats sound

Personalized Spatial Audio with dynamic head tracking immerses you in your music, movies and games, tracking the motion of your head for an interactive surround-sound experience¹

UltraPlush on-ear cushions provide lasting comfort and durability, with exceptional passive noise isolation to block external sound

The flex-grip headband and ergonomically angled ear cups provide a comfortable fit with ultimate stability to ensure high-fidelity sound can be delivered optimally to your ears

At just 217 grams, the headphones’ ergonomic design is so light you can almost forget they’re on

Up to 50 hours of battery life so you can listen longer without needing to recharge³

Fast Fuel means a quick 10-minute charge gives up to 5 hours of playback⁴

Dual compatibility for both iOS and Android enables seamless one-touch pairing, automatic pre-pairing across your devices, and Find My or Find My Device⁵

Exceptional call quality thanks to multiple digital beam-forming microphones powered by an advanced voice-targeting algorithm.

Extended range and fewer dropouts thanks to industry-leading Class 1 Bluetooth®

High-resolution lossless audio via USB-C or 3.5 mm audio cable.² Listening via 3.5 mm audio cable requires zero battery power.

What’s in the Box

Beats Solo 4 headphones

Carrying case

USB-C to USB-C cable for charging and audio

3.5 mm analog audio cable

Quick Start Guide

Warranty Card

(USB-C power adaptor sold separately)

Height: 2.7 in./6.8 cm

Length: 6.9 in./17.7 cm

Width: 6.2 in./15.8 cm

Weight: 7.65 oz./217 g

Other Features: Bluetooth, Wireless

Form Factor: On Ear

Connections: Bluetooth, Wireless

Bluetooth Compatibility: Bluetooth 5.3

Power Source: Battery

Batteries: Rechargeable lithium-ion

Connectivity: Class 1 Wireless Bluetooth® USB-C audio 3.5 mm analog input for wired audio sources Battery: Beats Solo 4 (single charge): up to 50 hours of listening time³ Fast Fuel: a 10-minute charge provides up to 5 hours of playback⁴ On-device controls: ‘b’ button for music and call controls Volume up/down rocker Multi-function button for power and pairing Packaging: Beats Solo 4 packaging is made from 100% fiber, sourced from sustainably managed forests⁸

Compatibility

Iphone models.

• iPhone 15 Pro
• iPhone 15 Pro Max
• iPhone 15 Plus
• iPhone 14 Pro
• iPhone 14 Pro Max
• iPhone 14 Plus
• iPhone 13 Pro
• iPhone 13 Pro Max
• iPhone 13 mini
• iPhone SE (3rd generation)
• iPhone 12 Pro
• iPhone 12 Pro Max
• iPhone 12 mini
• iPhone 11 Pro
• iPhone 11 Pro Max
• iPhone SE (2nd generation)
• iPhone XS Max
• iPhone 8 Plus
• iPhone 7 Plus
• iPhone 6s Plus
• iPhone SE (1st generation)

iPad Models

• iPad Pro 12.9-inch (6th generation)
• iPad Pro 12.9-inch (5th generation)
• iPad Pro 12.9-inch (4th generation)
• iPad Pro 12.9-inch (3rd generation)
• iPad Pro 12.9-inch (2nd generation)
• iPad Pro 12.9-inch (1st generation)
• iPad Pro 11-inch (4th generation)
• iPad Pro 11-inch (3rd generation)
• iPad Pro 11-inch (2nd generation)
• iPad Pro 11-inch (1st generation)
• iPad Pro 10.5-inch
• iPad Pro 9.7-inch
• iPad Air (5th generation)
• iPad Air (4th generation)
• iPad Air (3rd generation)
• iPad (10th generation)
• iPad (9th generation)
• iPad (8th generation)
• iPad (7th generation)
• iPad (6th generation)
• iPad (5th generation)
• iPad mini (6th generation)
• iPad mini (5th generation)
• iPad mini 4
• MacBook Air (13-inch, M3, 2024)
• MacBook Air (15-inch, M3, 2024)
• MacBook Air (15-inch, M2, 2023)
• MacBook Air (13-inch, M2, 2022)
• MacBook Air (M1, 2020)
• MacBook Air (Retina, 13‑inch, 2020)
• MacBook Air (Retina, 13-inch, 2018–2019)
• MacBook Air (13-inch, Early 2015 - 2017)
• MacBook Air (11-inch, Early 2015)
• MacBook Pro (13‑inch, M2, 2022)
• MacBook Pro (13-inch, M1, 2020)
• MacBook Pro (13-inch, 2020)
• MacBook Pro (13-inch, 2016–2019)
• MacBook Pro (Retina, 13-inch, Late 2012 - 2015)
• MacBook Pro (14‑inch, 2023)
• MacBook Pro (14‑inch, 2021)
• MacBook Pro (16‑inch, 2023)
• MacBook Pro (16-inch, 2021)
• MacBook Pro (16-inch, 2019)
• MacBook Pro (15-inch, 2016–2019)
• MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Mid 2012 - 2015)
• MacBook (Retina, 12-inch, Early 2015 – 2017)
• iMac (24-inch, M3, 2023)
• iMac (24-inch, M1, 2021)
• iMac (Retina 4K, 21.5‑inch, 2019)
• iMac (Retina 4K, 21.5-inch, 2017)
• iMac (Retina 4K, 21.5-inch, Late 2015)
• iMac (Retina 5K, 27-inch, 2019–2020)
• iMac (Retina 5K, 27‑inch, 2017)
• iMac (Retina 5K, 27-inch, Late 2014 - 2015)
• iMac Pro (2017)
• Mac Studio (2023)
• Mac Studio (2022)
• Mac mini (2023)
• Mac mini (M1, 2020)
• Mac mini (2018)
• Mac mini (Late 2014)
• Mac Pro (2023)
• Mac Pro (2019)
• Mac Pro (Late 2013)

Apple Watch Models

• Apple Watch Ultra 2
• Apple Watch Series 9
• Apple Watch SE
• Apple Watch Ultra
• Apple Watch Series 8
• Apple Watch Series 7
• Apple Watch Series 6
• Apple Watch Series 5
• Apple Watch Series 4
• Apple Watch Series 3
• Apple Watch Series 2
• Apple Watch Series 1

Apple TV Models

• Apple TV 4K (3rd generation)
• Apple TV 4K (2nd generation)
• Apple TV 4K (1st generation)
• Apple TV HD

iPod Models

• iPod touch (7th generation)

Navigating the Future of Supply Chain Talent: Zero100 x The Estée Lauder Companies Case Study The Zero100 Podcast: Digitally Reinventing Supply Chain

At Zero100 we’re obsessed not just with the technology to reinvent supply chains, but also the talent that will power the reinvention. So, we sat down with four leaders at The Estée Lauder Companies Inc. to get into the nuts and bolts of their supply chain talent strategy and find out how they’re future-proofing their workforce.

• Episode Website
• More Episodes
• Copyright 2024 Zero100

Top Podcasts In Technology

More From Forbes

Curiosity: the superpower for success in the workplace and at home.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Dr. D’Amico is the Founder of Vetta Consultants, LLC , an executive coaching firm in Los Angeles.

In a rapidly changing and increasingly complex world, the value of technical skills and knowledge can depreciate with time. However, one timeless skill stands out as a superpower in the workplace and at home: curiosity. This innate desire to explore, understand and question enriches our lives and drives innovation and improvement in various domains.

In the workplace, curiosity acts as the fuel for innovation and creativity. It encourages individuals to question the status quo, explore new possibilities and think outside the box. This relentless pursuit of knowledge and understanding can lead to the discovery of unique solutions to complex problems and the development of groundbreaking products and services. Organizations that cultivate a culture of curiosity often find themselves at the forefront of their industries, leading the charge toward the future.

Change is constant. Adaptability is key to survival and success. Curious individuals are naturally more adaptable because they continuously learn and expand their horizons. This continuous pursuit of knowledge ensures they can navigate uncertainties and adapt to new situations more efficiently. In the workplace, this translates to a workforce that can swiftly pivot in response to market changes. At home, it means being better equipped to handle life's unpredictability.

Seek To Understand, Listen To Learn

Curiosity plays a crucial role in building and maintaining solid relationships. We foster deeper connections and understanding by showing genuine interest in others' thoughts, feelings and experiences. Curious individuals are often excellent listeners and communicators, invaluable traits in any relationship. They approach new relationships and opportunities with a growth mindset, an almost child-like curiosity and a willingness to learn. Curiosity enhances team dynamics and professional collaboration and strengthens bonds with co-workers, family and friends.

$300 Billion ‘Perfect Storm’ Bitcoin Price Crash Under $60,000 Suddenly Accelerates As Ethereum, XRP And Crypto Brace For Shock Fed Flip

Toyota s suv lineup is new and refreshed which one is right for you, the top 10 richest people in the world (may 2024).

At its core, curiosity is a fundamental part of personal growth. It pushes individuals to learn, grow and challenge themselves continuously. This pursuit of personal development is deeply satisfying and contributes to overall happiness and fulfillment. Moreover, curious people often find joy in learning, regardless of the outcome, leading to a more engaging and fulfilling life.

Curiosity is also closely linked to effective problem-solving. By fostering an inquisitive mindset, individuals are more likely to approach challenges with an open mind and consider multiple perspectives and solutions. This approach increases the likelihood of solving complex problems and encourages more innovative and effective solutions. This ability can lead to better decision-making and outcomes in both professional and personal contexts.

Promoting Inclusivity Through Curiosity

Curiosity is also a powerful tool for creating more inclusive environments. By fostering a genuine interest in the perspectives, experiences and cultures of others, curiosity helps break down barriers and build a foundation of mutual respect and understanding. In professional settings, curious leaders and team members are more likely to recognize and value diverse viewpoints, leading to more inclusive decision-making processes, collaboration, innovation and a culture where everyone feels seen and heard.

At home, a curious attitude toward understanding different cultures, beliefs and lifestyles can enrich family life, fostering an open-minded and accepting atmosphere. Encouraging questions and exploring different perspectives can help children and adults develop empathy and a global mindset, preparing them to navigate a diverse world with compassion and respect. Curiosity can bridge gaps, dissolve prejudices and pave the way for more inclusive communities.

How Can We Cultivate Curiosity?

Recognizing the value of curiosity is the first step; actively cultivating it is the next. Encourage questions from others, ask questions of your own, listen to the answers, seek out new experiences and embrace the unknown. Take on new projects at work, explore new hobbies, engage in lifelong learning or make an effort to understand a different perspective or a new culture; the opportunities to nurture curiosity are endless.

Curiosity is more than just a trait; it's a superpower that can lead to significant advancements in professional and personal arenas. By embracing and cultivating curiosity, individuals and organizations can unlock unique possibilities to navigate the complexities of the modern world with greater ease and success.

This case study examines how curiosity facilitated significant growth in Elizabeth, a mid-level manager at a technology firm facing leadership challenges.

Despite being technically proficient, Elizabeth struggled with employee engagement and team motivation. She was skeptical when the organization brought me in to help. She didn’t trust me or the process.

I began the coaching process by cultivating a deep sense of curiosity about her personal leadership style, her team dynamics and the organizational culture. I used several key strategies:

• Open-ended questioning: Using open-ended questions encouraged Elizabeth to reflect deeply on her own experiences and assumptions. Questions like "What do you think motivates your team?" and "How do you react to conflict?" opened up exploratory dialogues. I truly wanted to learn about her and her team and open up a conversation that would strengthen my understanding of who Elizabeth was without judgment.

• Active listening: By asking questions and actively listening to Elizabeth, I gained her trust and demonstrated how to value team members' input, an essential skill Elizabeth needed to develop.

• Encouraging self-inquiry: I guided Elizabeth to become curious about her leadership practices and how they affected her team.

Over several sessions, Elizabeth was encouraged to observe and question her interactions with her team and the outcomes of those interactions. This approach helped Elizabeth do two things:

1. Recognize areas where she previously lacked awareness, particularly around the impact of her communication style.

2. Explore new leadership strategies, such as inclusive decision-making and recognizing individual team member contributions.

As a result of being curious and reflective, Elizabeth reported improved engagement from her team, which was noted by increased participation in meetings and more proactive contributions to projects. Employee satisfaction scores within Elizabeth’s team also rose by 20% within six months, as reported in organizational surveys.

Curiosity empowered Elizabeth to discover and refine her leadership capabilities and fostered a more open, communicative and motivated team environment. This case study underscores the power of curiosity to facilitate meaningful change and development. Through the lens of curiosity, leadership coaching can transform potential into success, benefiting individuals and their organizations alike.

Forbes Coaches Council is an invitation-only community for leading business and career coaches. Do I qualify?

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

APICS CSCP Exam Prep 2024 17+

Practice questions, flashcards, fluent aac technology s.r.l., designed for iphone.

• Offers In-App Purchases

iPhone Screenshots

Description.

Over 5000 exam-relevant questions, 1000+ insightful flashcards, numerous practice exams, and detailed case studies make Ultraprep your ultimate tool for mastering the Certified Supply Chain Professional (CSCP) exam. Our app is engineered to encompass the breadth and depth of knowledge needed to excel in supply chain management. The CSCP exam is a crucial milestone for aspiring supply chain professionals, assessing their understanding of supply chain design, planning and execution, supply chain improvements, and best practices in procurement and sourcing. It scrutinizes one's proficiency in global supply chain management, including strategies for managing international logistics and compliance with global trade regulations. Passing the CSCP exam is essential for securing certification and advancing a successful career in supply chain management, ensuring practitioners are competent in delivering efficient and sustainable supply chain solutions. With our app, you will conquer core CSCP domains: * Supply Chain Design * Supply Chain Planning and Execution * Supply Chain Improvement and Best Practices * Procurement and Sourcing * Logistics and Compliance * Global Trade Regulations * And much more... Our content is meticulously updated to reflect the latest 2024 examination standards. CSCP® is a registered trademark of APICS, which does not endorse, sponsor, or affiliate with Ultraprep. Tackling the CSCP exam might seem daunting, but with Ultraprep, you're equipped with a dynamic and interactive study companion. Beyond memorization, our app aims to foster a deep understanding and practical application of supply chain management principles. We've designed our platform to engage learners, making study sessions not just productive but enjoyable as well. Discover how effective and engaging learning can transform your exam preparation journey. Prepare to excel on your CSCP with confidence and ease! Terms of use: https://ultraprep.co/terms Privacy policy: https://ultraprep.co/privacy-policy If you have questions or comments, email us any time: [email protected]

App Privacy

The developer, FLUENT AAC TECHNOLOGY S.R.L. , indicated that the app’s privacy practices may include handling of data as described below. For more information, see the developer’s privacy policy .

Data Not Collected

The developer does not collect any data from this app.

Privacy practices may vary, for example, based on the features you use or your age. Learn More

Information

• 1 Month Premium $24.99
• 1 Month Premium $9.99
• App Support
• Privacy Policy

More By This Developer

Accuplacer Practice Test 2024

NCE Study Guide

LCSW Practice Test 2024

EMT Practice Test 2024

CNA Practice Test Prep 2024

You Might Also Like

CSCP Test Prep 2024

APICS CSCP Practice Test 2024

APICS CSCP Exam Prep Test 2023

SERIES 6 Exam Prep 2023

ACLS Review & Pretest 2023

CSCP Exam Prep 2024